diff options
| -rw-r--r-- | .gitattributes | 4 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | LICENSE.txt | 11 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | README.md | 2 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/53038-0.txt | 20970 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/53038-0.zip | bin | 464871 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/53038-h.zip | bin | 580466 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/53038-h/53038-h.htm | 22784 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/53038-h/images/colophon.jpg | bin | 23093 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/53038-h/images/cover.jpg | bin | 55689 -> 0 bytes |
9 files changed, 17 insertions, 43754 deletions
diff --git a/.gitattributes b/.gitattributes new file mode 100644 index 0000000..d7b82bc --- /dev/null +++ b/.gitattributes @@ -0,0 +1,4 @@ +*.txt text eol=lf +*.htm text eol=lf +*.html text eol=lf +*.md text eol=lf diff --git a/LICENSE.txt b/LICENSE.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..6312041 --- /dev/null +++ b/LICENSE.txt @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@ +This eBook, including all associated images, markup, improvements, +metadata, and any other content or labor, has been confirmed to be +in the PUBLIC DOMAIN IN THE UNITED STATES. + +Procedures for determining public domain status are described in +the "Copyright How-To" at https://www.gutenberg.org. + +No investigation has been made concerning possible copyrights in +jurisdictions other than the United States. Anyone seeking to utilize +this eBook outside of the United States should confirm copyright +status under the laws that apply to them. diff --git a/README.md b/README.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..706a187 --- /dev/null +++ b/README.md @@ -0,0 +1,2 @@ +Project Gutenberg (https://www.gutenberg.org) public repository for +eBook #53038 (https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/53038) diff --git a/old/53038-0.txt b/old/53038-0.txt deleted file mode 100644 index 74dbb7c..0000000 --- a/old/53038-0.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,20970 +0,0 @@ -The Project Gutenberg EBook of Language, by Otto Jespersen - -This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most -other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions -whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of -the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at -www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you'll have -to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this ebook. - -Title: Language - Its Nature, Development and Origin - -Author: Otto Jespersen - -Release Date: September 12, 2016 [EBook #53038] - -Language: English - -Character set encoding: UTF-8 - -*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK LANGUAGE *** - - - - -Produced by Henry Flower and the Online Distributed -Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This file was -produced from images generously made available by The -Internet Archive/American Libraries.) - - - - - - - - - -Transcriber's Note - - -Bold text is indicated by ‡double daggers‡, italics by _underscores_, -and superscript by caret symbols, e.g. R^x. - - - - - LANGUAGE - ITS NATURE - DEVELOPMENT - AND ORIGIN - - - - -_BY THE SAME AUTHOR_ - - - ‡Articulation of Speech Sounds‡ (Marburg: Elwert) - - ‡Studier over engelske kasus‡ (out of print) - - ‡Chaucers liv og digtning‡ (out of print) - - ‡Progress in Language‡ (out of print) - - ‡Fonetik‡ (Copenhagen: Gyldendal) - - ‡How to Teach a Foreign Language‡ (London: George Allen & Unwin) - - ‡Lehrbuch der Phonetik‡ (Leipzig: Teubner) - - ‡Phonetische Grundfragen‡ (Leipzig: Teubner) - - ‡Growth and Structure of the English Language‡ (Leipzig: Teubner) - - ‡A Modern English Grammar: I, II‡ (Heidelberg: Winter) - - ‡Sprogets logik‡ (Copenhagen: Gyldendal) - - ‡Nutidssprog‡ (Copenhagen: Gyldendal) - - ‡Negation in English and Other Languages‡ (Copenhagen: Höst) - - ‡Chapters on English‡ (London: George Allen & Unwin) - - ‡Rasmus Rask‡ (Copenhagen: Gyldendal) - - - - - LANGUAGE - - ITS NATURE - DEVELOPMENT - AND ORIGIN - - - BY - - OTTO JESPERSEN - - PROFESSOR IN THE UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN - - - [Illustration] - - - LONDON: GEORGE ALLEN & UNWIN LTD. - RUSKIN HOUSE, 40 MUSEUM STREET, W.C. 1 - - - - - _First published in 1922_ - - - (_All rights reserved_) - - - - - TO - - VILHELM THOMSEN - - - - - Glæde, når av andres mund - jeg hørte de tanker store, - Glæde over hvert et fund - jeg selv ved min forsken gjorde. - - - - -PREFACE - - -The distinctive feature of the science of language as conceived -nowadays is its historical character: a language or a word is no longer -taken as something given once for all, but as a result of previous -development and at the same time as the starting-point for subsequent -development. This manner of viewing languages constitutes a decisive -improvement on the way in which languages were dealt with in previous -centuries, and it suffices to mention such words as ‘evolution’ and -‘Darwinism’ to show that linguistic research has in this respect been -in full accordance with tendencies observed in many other branches of -scientific work during the last hundred years. Still, it cannot be -said that students of language have always and to the fullest extent -made it clear to themselves what is the real essence of a language. -Too often expressions are used which are nothing but metaphors--in -many cases perfectly harmless metaphors, but in other cases metaphors -that obscure the real facts of the matter. Language is frequently -spoken of as a ‘living organism’; we hear of the ‘life’ of languages, -of the ‘birth’ of new languages and of the ‘death’ of old languages, -and the implication, though not always realized, is that a language -is a living thing, something analogous to an animal or a plant. Yet -a language evidently has no separate existence in the same way as a -dog or a beech has, but is nothing but a function of certain living -human beings. Language is activity, purposeful activity, and we should -never lose sight of the speaking individuals and of their purpose -in acting in this particular way. When people speak of the life of -words--as in celebrated books with such titles as _La vie des mots_, -or _Biographies of Words_--they do not always keep in view that a word -has no ‘life’ of its own: it exists only in so far as it is pronounced -or heard or remembered by somebody, and this kind of existence cannot -properly be compared with ‘life’ in the original and proper sense of -that word. The only unimpeachable definition of a word is that it is -a human habit, an habitual act on the part of one human individual -which has, or may have, the effect of evoking some idea in the mind -of another individual. A word thus may be rightly compared with such -an habitual act as taking off one’s hat or raising one’s fingers to -one’s cap: in both cases we have a certain set of muscular activities -which, when seen or heard by somebody else, shows him what is passing -in the mind of the original agent or what he desires to bring to the -consciousness of the other man (or men). The act is individual, but -the interpretation presupposes that the individual forms part of a -community with analogous habits, and a language thus is seen to be one -particular set of human customs of a well-defined social character. - -It is indeed possible to speak of ‘life’ in connexion with language -even from this point of view, but it will be in a different sense from -that in which the word was taken by the older school of linguistic -science. I shall try to give a biological or biographical science of -language, but it will be through sketching the linguistic biology -or biography of the speaking individual. I shall give, therefore, a -large part to the way in which a child learns his mother-tongue (Book -II): my conclusions there are chiefly based on the rich material I -have collected during many years from direct observation of many -Danish children, and particularly of my own boy, Frans (see my book -_Nutidssprog hos börn og voxne_, Copenhagen, 1916). Unfortunately, I -have not been able to make first-hand observations with regard to the -speech of English children; the English examples I quote are taken -second-hand either from notes, for which I am obliged to English and -American friends, or from books, chiefly by psychologists. I should be -particularly happy if my remarks could induce some English or American -linguist to take up a systematic study of the speech of children, or -of one child. This study seems to me very fascinating indeed, and a -linguist is sure to notice many things that would be passed by as -uninteresting even by the closest observer among psychologists, but -which may have some bearing on the life and development of language. - -Another part of linguistic biology deals with the influence of the -foreigner, and still another with the changes which the individual -is apt independently to introduce into his speech even after he has -fully acquired his mother-tongue. This naturally leads up to the -question whether all these changes introduced by various individuals -do, or do not, follow the same line of direction, and whether mankind -has on the whole moved forward or not in linguistic matters. The -conviction reached through a study of historically accessible periods -of well-known languages is finally shown to throw some light on the -disputed problem of the ultimate origin of human language. - -Parts of my theory of sound-change, and especially my objections to -the dogma of blind sound-laws, date back to my very first linguistic -paper (1886); most of the chapters on Decay or Progress and parts -of some of the following chapters, as well as the theory of the -origin of speech, may be considered a new and revised edition of the -general chapters of my _Progress in Language_ (1894). Many of the -ideas contained in this book thus are not new with me; but even if a -reader of my previous works may recognize things which he has seen -before, I hope he will admit that they have been here worked up with -much new material into something like a system, which forms a fairly -comprehensive theory of linguistic development. - -Still, I have not been able to compress into this volume the whole -of my philosophy of speech. Considerations of space have obliged -me to exclude the chapters I had first intended to write on the -practical consequences of the ‘energetic’ view of language which I -have throughout maintained; the estimation of linguistic phenomena -implied in that view has bearings on such questions as these: What is -to be considered ‘correct’ or ‘standard’ in matters of pronunciation, -spelling, grammar and idiom? Can (or should) individuals exert -themselves to improve their mother-tongue by enriching it with new -terms and by making it purer, more precise, more fit to express subtle -shades of thought, more easy to handle in speech or in writing, etc.? -(A few hints on such questions may be found in my paper “Energetik -der Sprache” in _Scientia_, 1914.) Is it possible to construct an -artificial language on scientific principles for international use? -(On this question I may here briefly state my conviction that it is -extremely important for the whole of mankind to have such a language, -and that Ido is scientifically and practically very much superior to -all previous attempts, Volapük, Esperanto, Idiom Neutral, Latin sine -flexione, etc. But I have written more at length on that question -elsewhere.) With regard to the system of grammar, the relation of -grammar to logic, and grammatical categories and their definition, I -must refer the reader to _Sprogets Logik_ (Copenhagen, 1913), and to -the first chapter of the second volume of my _Modern English Grammar_ -(Heidelberg, 1914), but I shall hope to deal with these questions more -in detail in a future work, to be called, probably, _The Logic of -Grammar_, of which some chapters have been ready in my drawers for some -years and others are in active preparation. - -I have prefixed to the theoretical chapters of this work a short survey -of the history of the science of language in order to show how my -problems have been previously treated. In this part (Book I) I have, as -a matter of course, used the excellent works on the subject by Benfey, -Raumer, Delbrück (_Einleitung in das Sprachstudium_, 1st ed., 1880; I -did not see the 5th ed., 1908, till my own chapters on the history of -linguistics were finished), Thomsen, Oertel and Pedersen. But I have in -nearly every case gone to the sources themselves, and have, I think, -found interesting things in some of the early books on linguistics -that have been generally overlooked; I have even pointed out some -writers who had passed into undeserved oblivion. My intention has -been on the whole to throw into relief the great lines of development -rather than to give many details; in judging the first part of my -book it should also be borne in mind that its object primarily is to -serve as an introduction to the problems dealt with in the rest of the -book. Throughout I have tried to look at things with my own eyes, and -accordingly my views on a great many points are different from those -generally accepted; it is my hope that an impartial observer will find -that I have here and there succeeded in distributing light and shade -more justly than my predecessors. - -Wherever it has been necessary I have transcribed words phonetically -according to the system of the _Association Phonétique Internationale_, -though without going into too minute distinction of sounds, the object -being, not to teach the exact pronunciation of various languages, but -rather to bring out clearly the insufficiency of the ordinary spelling. -The latter is given throughout in italics, while phonetic symbols -have been inserted in brackets [ ]. I must ask the reader to forgive -inconsistency in such matters as Greek accents, Old English marks of -vowel-length, etc., which I have often omitted as of no importance for -the purpose of this volume. - -I must express here my gratitude to the directors of the Carlsbergfond -for kind support of my work. I want to thank also Professor G. C. Moore -Smith, of the University of Sheffield: not only has he sent me the -manuscript of a translation of most of my _Nutidssprog_, which he had -undertaken of his own accord and which served as the basis of Book II, -but he has kindly gone through the whole of this volume, improving and -correcting my English style in many passages. His friendship and the -untiring interest he has always taken in my work have been extremely -valuable to me for a great many years. - - OTTO JESPERSEN. - - UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN, - _June 1921_. - - - - -CONTENTS - - - PAGE - - PREFACE 7 - ABBREVIATIONS OF BOOK TITLES, ETC. 13 - PHONETIC SYMBOLS 16 - - - _BOOK I_ - HISTORY OF LINGUISTIC SCIENCE - - CHAPTER - - I. BEFORE 1800 19 - II. BEGINNING OF NINETEENTH CENTURY 32 - III. MIDDLE OF NINETEENTH CENTURY 63 - IV. END OF NINETEENTH CENTURY 89 - - - _BOOK II_ - THE CHILD - - V. SOUNDS 103 - VI. WORDS 113 - VII. GRAMMAR 128 - VIII. SOME FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEMS 140 - IX. THE INFLUENCE OF THE CHILD ON LINGUISTIC DEVELOPMENT 161 - X. THE INFLUENCE OF THE CHILD (_continued_) 172 - - - _BOOK III_ - THE INDIVIDUAL AND THE WORLD - - XI. THE FOREIGNER 191 - XII. PIDGIN AND CONGENERS 216 - XIII. THE WOMAN 237 - XIV. CAUSES OF CHANGE 255 - XV. CAUSES OF CHANGE (_continued_) 276 - - - _BOOK IV_ - DEVELOPMENT OF LANGUAGE - - XVI. ETYMOLOGY 305 - XVII. PROGRESS OR DECAY? 319 - XVIII. PROGRESS 337 - XIX. ORIGIN OF GRAMMATICAL ELEMENTS 367 - XX. SOUND SYMBOLISM 396 - XXI. THE ORIGIN OF SPEECH 412 - - INDEX 443 - - - - -ABBREVIATIONS OF BOOK TITLES, ETC. - - -Bally LV = Ch. Bally, _Le Langage et la Vie_, Genève 1913. - -Benfey Gesch = Th. Benfey, _Geschichte der Sprachwissenschaft_, -München 1869. - -Bleek CG = W. H. I. Bleek, _Comparative Grammar of South African -Languages_, London 1862-69. - -Bloomfield SL = L. Bloomfield, _An Introduction to the Study of -Language_, New York 1914. - -Bopp C = F. Bopp, _Conjugationssystem der Sanskritsprache_, Frankfurt -1816. - - AC = _Analytical Comparison_ (see ch. ii, § 6). - - VG = _Vergleichende Grammatik_, 2te Ausg., Berlin 1857. - -Bréal M = M. Bréal, _Mélanges de Mythologie et de Linguistique_, Paris -1882. - -Brugmann VG = K. Brugmann, _Grundriss der Vergleichenden Grammatik_, -Strassburg 1886 ff., 2te Ausg., 1897 ff. - - KG = _Kurze Vergleichende Grammatik_, Strassburg 1904. - -ChE = O. Jespersen, _Chapters on English_, London 1918. - -Churchill B = W. Churchill, _Beach-la-Mar_, Washington 1911. - -Curtius C = G. Curtius, _Zur Chronologie der indogerm. -Sprachforschung_, Leipzig 1873. - - K = _Zur Kritik der neuesten Sprachforschung_, Leipzig 1885. - -Dauzat V = A. Dauzat, _La Vie du Langage_, Paris 1910. - - Ph = _La Philosophie du Langage_, Paris 1912. - -Delbrück E = B. Delbrück, _Einleitung in das Sprachstudium_, Leipzig -1880; 5te Aufl. 1908. - - Grfr = _Grundfragen der Sprachforschung_, Strassburg 1901. - -E. = English. - -EDD = J. Wright, _The English Dialect Dictionary_, Oxford 1898 ff. - -ESt = _Englische Studien_. - -Feist KI = S. Feist, _Kultur, Ausbreitung und Herkunft der -Indogermanen_, Berlin 1913. - -Fonetik = O. Jespersen, _Fonetik_, Copenhagen 1897. - -Fr. = French. - -Gabelentz Spr = G. v. d. Gabelentz, _Die Sprachwissenschaft_, Leipzig -1891. - - Gr = _Chinesische Grammatik_, Leipzig 1881. - -Ginneken LP = J. v. Ginneken, _Principes de Linguistique -Psychologique_, Amsterdam, Paris 1907. - -Glenconner = P. Glenconner, _The Sayings of the Children_, Oxford 1918. - -Gr. = Greek. - -Greenough and Kittredge W = J. B. Greenough and G. L. Kittredge, _Words -and their Ways in English Speech_, London 1902. - -Grimm Gr. = J. Grimm, _Deutsche Grammatik_, 2te Ausg., Göttingen 1822. - - GDS = _Geschichte der deutschen Sprache_, 4te Aufl., Leipzig 1880. - -GRM = _Germanisch-Romanische Monatsschrift_. - -GS = O. Jespersen, _Growth and Structure of the English Language_, 3rd -ed., Leipzig 1919. - -Hilmer Sch = H. Hilmer, _Schallnachahmung, Wortschöpfung u. -Bedeutungswandel_, Halle 1914. - -Hirt GDS = H. Hirt, _Geschichte der deutschen Sprache_, München 1919. - - Idg = _Die Indogermanen_, Strassburg 1905-7. - -Humboldt Versch = W. v. Humboldt, _Verschiedenheit des menschlichen -Sprachbaues_ (number of pages as in the original edition). - -IF = _Indogermanische Forschungen_. - -KZ = Kuhn’s _Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung_. - -Lasch S = R. Lasch, _Sondersprachen u. ihre Entstehung_, Wien 1907. - -LPh = O. Jespersen, _Lehrbuch der Phonetik_, 3te Aufl., Leipzig 1920. - -Madvig 1857 = J. N. Madvig, _De grammatische Betegnelser_, Copenhagen -1857. - - Kl = _Kleine philologische Schriften_, Leipzig 1875. - -ME. = Middle English. - -MEG = O. Jespersen, _Modern English Grammar_, Heidelberg 1909, 1914. - -Meillet DI = A. Meillet, _Les Dialectes Indo-Européens_, Paris 1908. - - Germ. = _Caractères généraux des Langues Germaniques_, Paris 1917. - - Gr = _Aperçu d’une Histoire de la Langue Grecque_, Paris 1913. - - LI = _Introduction à l’étude comp. des Langues Indo-Européennes_, 2e - éd., Paris 1908. - -Meinhof Ham = C. Meinhof, _Die hamitischen Sprachen_, Hamburg 1912. - - MSA = _Die moderne Sprachforschung in Afrika_, Berlin 1910. - -Meringer L = R. Meringer, _Aus dem Leben der Sprache_, Berlin 1908. - -Misteli = F. Misteli, _Charakteristik der haupts. Typen des -Sprachbaues_, Berlin 1893. - -MSL = _Mémoires de la Société de Linguistique de Paris_. - -Fr. Müller Gr = Friedrich Müller, _Grundriss der Sprachwissenschaft_, -Wien 1876 ff. - -Max Müller Ch = F. Max Müller, _Chips from a German Workshop_, vol. iv, -London 1875. - -NED = _A New English Dictionary_, by Murray, etc., Oxford 1884 ff. - -Noreen UL = A. Noreen, _Abriss der urgermanischen Lautlehre_, -Strassburg 1894. - - VS = _Vårt Språk_, Lund 1903 ff. - -Nyrop Gr = Kr. Nyrop, _Grammaire Historique de la Langue Française_, -Copenhagen 1914 ff. - -OE. = Old English (Anglo-Saxon). - -Oertel = H. Oertel, _Lectures on the Study of Language_, New York 1901. - -OFr. = Old French. - -ON. = Old Norse. - -Passy Ch = P. Passy, _Les Changements Phonétiques_, Paris 1890. - -Paul P = H. Paul, _Prinzipien der Sprachgeschichte_, 4te Aufl., Halle -1909. - - Gr = _Grundriss der germanischen Philologie_. - -PBB = _Beitrage zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache_ (Paul u. Braune). - -Pedersen GKS = H. Pedersen, _Vergl. Grammatik der keltischen Sprachen_, -Göttingen 1909. - -PhG = O. Jespersen, _Phonetische Grundfragen_, Leipzig 1904. - -Porzezinski Spr = V. Porzezinski, _Einleitung in die -Sprachwissenschaft_, Leipzig 1910. - -Progr. = O. Jespersen, _Progress in Language_, London 1894. - -Rask P = R. Rask [Prisskrift] _Undersögelse om det gamle Nordiske -Sprogs Oprindelse_, Copenhagen 1818. - - SA = _Samlede Afhandlinger_, Copenhagen 1834. - -Raumer Gesch = R. v. Raumer, _Geschichte der germanischen Philologie_, -München 1870. - -Ronjat = J. Ronjat, _Le Développement du Langage chez un Enfant -Bilingue_, Paris 1913. - -Sandfeld Jensen S = Kr. Sandfeld Jensen, _Sprogvidenskaben_, Copenhagen -1913. - - Sprw = _Die Sprachwissenschaft_, Leipzig 1915. - -Saussure LG = F. de Saussure, _Cours de Linguistique Générale_, -Lausanne 1916. - -Sayce P = A. H. Sayce, _Principles of Comparative Philology_, 2nd ed., -London 1875. - - S = _Introduction to the Science of Language_, London 1880. - -Scherer GDS = W. Scherer, _Zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache_, -Berlin 1878. - -Schleicher I, II = A. Schleicher, _Sprachvergleichende Untersuchungen_, -I-II, Bonn 1848, 1850. - - Bed. = _Die Bedeutung der Sprache_, Weimar 1865. - - C = _Compendium der vergl. Grammatik_, 4te Aufl., Weimar 1876. - - D = _Die deutsche Sprache_, Stuttgart 1860. - - Darw. = _Die Darwinische Theorie und die Sprachwissenschaft_, Weimar - 1873. - - NV = _Nomen und Verbum_, Leipzig 1865. - -Schuchardt SlD = H. Schuchardt, _Slawo-Deutsches u. -Slawo-Italienisches_, Graz 1885. - - KS = _Kreolische Studien_ (Wien, Akademie). - -Simonyi US = S. Simonyi, _Die Ungarische Sprache_, Strassburg 1907. - -Skt. = Sanskrit. - -Sommer Lat. = F. Sommer, _Handbuch der latein. Laut- und Formenlehre_, -Heidelberg 1902. - -Stern = Clara and William Stern, _Die Kindersprache_, Leipzig 1907. - -Stoffel Int. = C. Stoffel, _Intensives and Down-toners_, Heidelberg -1901. - -Streitberg Gesch = W. Streitberg, _Geschichte der indogerm. -Sprachwissenschaft_, Strassburg 1917. - - Urg = _Urgermanische Grammatik_, Heidelberg 1896. - -Sturtevant LCh = E. H. Sturtevant, _Linguistic Change_, Chicago 1917. - -Sütterlin WSG = L. Sütterlin, _Das Wesen der sprachlichen Gebilde_, -Heidelberg 1902. - - WW = _Werden und Wesen der Sprache_, Leipzig 1913. - -Sweet CP = H. Sweet, _Collected Papers_, Oxford 1913. - - H = _The History of Language_, London 1900. - - PS = _The Practical Study of Languages_, London 1899. - -Tegnér SM = E. Tegnér, _Språkets makt öfver tanken_, Stockholm 1880. - -Verner = K. Verner, _Afhandlinger og Breve_, Copenhagen 1903. - -Wechssler L = E. Wechssler, _Giebt es Lautgesetze?_ Halle 1900. - -Whitney G = W. D. Whitney, _Life and Growth of Language_, London 1875. - - L = _Language and the Study of Language_, London 1868. - - M = _Max Müller and the Science of Language_, New York 1892. - - OLS = _Oriental and Linguistic Studies_, New York 1873-4. - -Wundt S = W. Wundt, _Die Sprache_, Leipzig 1900. - - - - -PHONETIC SYMBOLS - - - ' stands before the stressed syllable. - - · indicates length of the preceding sound. - - [a·] as in _a_lms. - [ai] as in _i_ce. - [au] as in h_ou_se. - [æ] as in h_a_t. - [ei] as in h_a_te. - [ɛ] as in c_a_re; Fr. t_e_l. - [ə] indistinct vowels. - [i] as in f_i_ll; Fr. qu_i_. - [i·] as in f_ee_l; Fr. f_i_lle. - [o] as in Fr. s_eau_. - [ou] as in s_o_. - [ɔ] open _o_-sounds. - [u] as in f_u_ll; Fr. f_ou_. - [u·] as in f_oor_l; Fr. ép_ou_se. - [y] as in Fr. v_u_. - [ʌ] as in c_u_t. - [ø] as in Fr. f_eu_. - [œ] as in Fr. s_œu_r. - [~] French nasalization. - [c] as in G. i_ch_. - [x] as in G., Sc. lo_ch_. - [ð] as in _th_is. - [j] as in _y_ou. - [þ] as in _th_ick. - [ʃ] as in _sh_e. - [ʒ] as in mea_s_ure. - [’] in Russian palatalization, in Danish glottal stop. - - - - -_BOOK I_ - -HISTORY OF LINGUISTIC SCIENCE - - - - -CHAPTER I - -BEFORE 1800 - - § 1. Antiquity. § 2. Middle Ages and Renaissance. § 3. - Eighteenth-century Speculation. Herder. § 4. Jenisch. - - -I.--§ 1. Antiquity. - -The science of language began, tentatively and approximately, when -the minds of men first turned to problems like these: How is it that -people do not speak everywhere the same language? How were words -first created? What is the relation between a name and the thing it -stands for? Why is such and such a person, or such and such a thing, -called _this_ and not _that_? The first answers to these questions, -like primitive answers to other riddles of the universe, were largely -theological: God, or one particular god, had created language, or -God led all animals to the first man in order that he might give -them names. Thus in the Old Testament the diversity of languages is -explained as a punishment from God for man’s crimes and presumption. -These were great and general problems, but the minds of the early -Jews were also occupied with smaller and more particular problems of -language, as when etymological interpretations were given of such -personal names as were not immediately self-explanatory. - -The same predilection for etymology, and a similar primitive kind of -etymology, based entirely on a more or less accidental similarity of -sound and easily satisfied with any fanciful connexion in sense, is -found abundantly in Greek writers and in their Latin imitators. But -to the speculative minds of Greek thinkers the problem that proved -most attractive was the general and abstract one, Are words natural -and necessary expressions of the notions underlying them, or are they -merely arbitrary and conventional signs for notions that might have -been equally well expressed by any other sounds? Endless discussions -were carried on about this question, as we see particularly from -Plato’s _Kratylos_, and no very definite result was arrived at, nor -could any be expected so long as one language only formed the basis of -the discussion--even in our own days, after a century of comparative -philology, the question still remains an open one. In Greece, the -two catchwords _phúsei_ (by nature) and _thései_ (by convention) for -centuries divided philosophers and grammarians into two camps, while -some, like Sokrates in Plato’s dialogue, though admitting that in -language as actually existing there was no natural connexion between -word and thing, still wished that an ideal language might be created -in which words and things would be tied together in a perfectly -rational way--thus paving the way for Bishop Wilkins and other modern -constructors of philosophical languages. - -Such abstract and _a priori_ speculations, however stimulating and -clever, hardly deserve the name of science, as this term is understood -nowadays. Science presupposes careful observation and systematic -classification of facts, and of that in the old Greek writers on -language we find very little. The earliest masters in linguistic -observation and classification were the old Indian grammarians. The -language of the old sacred hymns had become in many points obsolete, -but religion required that not one iota of these revered texts should -be altered, and a scrupulous oral tradition kept them unchanged from -generation to generation in every minute particular. This led to a -wonderfully exact analysis of speech sounds, in which every detail -of articulation was carefully described, and to a no less admirable -analysis of grammatical forms, which were arranged systematically -and described in a concise and highly ingenious, though artificial, -terminology. The whole manner of treatment was entirely different -from the methods of Western grammarians, and when the works of Panini -and other Sanskrit grammarians were first made known to Europeans in -the nineteenth century, they profoundly influenced our own linguistic -science, as witnessed, among other things, by the fact that some of the -Indian technical terms are still extensively used, for instance those -describing various kinds of compound nouns. - -In Europe grammatical science was slowly and laboriously developed -in Greece and later in Rome. Aristotle laid the foundation of the -division of words into “parts of speech” and introduced the notion -of case (_ptôsis_). His work in this connexion was continued by the -Stoics, many of whose grammatical distinctions and terms are still -in use, the latter in their Latin dress, which embodies some curious -mistakes, as when _genikḗ_, “the case of kind or species,” was rendered -_genitivus_, as if it meant “the case of origin,” or, worse still, when -_aitiatikḗ_, “the case of object,” was rendered _accusativus_, as if -from _aitiáomai_, ‘I accuse.’ In later times the philological school of -Alexandria was particularly important, the object of research being the -interpretation of the old poets, whose language was no longer instantly -intelligible. Details of flexion and of the meaning of words were -described and referred to the two categories of analogy or regularity -and anomaly or irregularity, but real insight into the nature of -language made very little progress either with the Alexandrians or -with their Roman inheritors, and etymology still remained in the -childlike stage. - - -I.--§ 2. Middle Ages and Renaissance. - -Nor did linguistic science advance in the Middle Ages. The chief thing -then was learning Latin as the common language of the Church and of -what little there was of civilization generally; but Latin was not -studied in a scientific spirit, and the various vernacular languages, -which one by one blossomed out into languages of literature, even less -so. - -The Renaissance in so far brought about a change in this, as it widened -the horizon, especially by introducing the study of Greek. It also -favoured grammatical studies through the stress it laid on correct -Latin as represented in the best period of classical literature: it now -became the ambition of humanists in all countries to write Latin like -Cicero. In the following centuries we witness a constantly deepening -interest in the various living languages of Europe, owing to the -growing importance of native literatures and to increasing facilities -of international traffic and communication in general. The most -important factor here was, of course, the invention of printing, which -rendered it incomparably more easy than formerly to obtain the means -of studying foreign languages. It should be noted also that in those -times the prevalent theological interest made it a much more common -thing than nowadays for ordinary scholars to have some knowledge of -Hebrew as the original language of the Old Testament. The acquaintance -with a language so different in type from those spoken in Europe in -many ways stimulated the interest in linguistic studies, though on -the other hand it proved a fruitful source of error, because the -position of the Semitic family of languages was not yet understood, and -because Hebrew was thought to be the language spoken in Paradise, and -therefore imagined to be the language from which all other languages -were descended. All kinds of fanciful similarities between Hebrew and -European languages were taken as proofs of the origin of the latter; -every imaginable permutation of sounds (or rather of letters) was -looked upon as possible so long as there was a slight connexion in -the sense of the two words compared, and however incredible it may -seem nowadays, the fact that Hebrew was written from right to left, -while we in our writing proceed from left to right, was considered -justification enough for the most violent transposition of letters in -etymological explanations. And yet all these flighty and whimsical -comparisons served perhaps in some measure to pave the way for a more -systematic treatment of etymology through collecting vast stores of -words from which sober and critical minds might select those instances -of indubitable connexion on which a sound science of etymology could -eventually be constructed. - -The discovery and publication of texts in the old Gothonic (Germanic) -languages, especially Wulfila’s Gothic translation of the Bible, -compared with which Old English (Anglo-Saxon), Old German and Old -Icelandic texts were of less, though by no means of despicable, -account, paved the way for historical treatment of this important -group of languages in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. But -on the whole, the interest in the history of languages in those days -was small, and linguistic thinkers thought it more urgent to establish -vast treasuries of languages as actually spoken than to follow the -development of any one language from century to century. Thus we -see that the great philosopher Leibniz, who took much interest in -linguistic pursuits and to whom we owe many judicious utterances on the -possibility of a universal language, instigated Peter the Great to have -vocabularies and specimens collected of all the various languages of -his vast empire. To this initiative taken by Leibniz, and to the great -personal interest that the Empress Catherine II took in these studies, -we owe, directly or indirectly, the great repertories of all languages -then known, first Pallas’s _Linguarum totius orbis vocabularia -comparativa_ (1786-87), then Hervas’s _Catálogo de las lenguas de las -naziones conocidas_ (1800-5), and finally Adelung’s _Mithridates oder -allgemeine Sprachenkunde_ (1806-17). In spite of their inevitable -shortcomings, their uncritical and unequal treatment of many languages, -the preponderance of lexical over grammatical information, and the -use of biblical texts as their sole connected illustrations, these -great works exercised a mighty influence on the linguistic thought -and research of the time, and contributed very much to the birth of -the linguistic science of the nineteenth century. It should not be -forgotten, moreover, that Hervas was one of the first to recognize the -superior importance of grammar to vocabulary for deciding questions of -relationship between languages. - -It will be well here to consider the manner in which languages and -the teaching of languages were generally viewed during the centuries -preceding the rise of Comparative Linguistics. The chief language -taught was Latin; the first and in many cases the only grammar with -which scholars came into contact was Latin grammar. No wonder therefore -that grammar and Latin grammar came in the minds of most people to be -synonyms. Latin grammar played an enormous rôle in the schools, to the -exclusion of many subjects (the pupil’s own native language, science, -history, etc.) which we are now beginning to think more essential for -the education of the young. The traditional term for ‘secondary school’ -was in England ‘grammar school’ and in Denmark ‘latinskole,’ and the -reason for both expressions was obviously the same. Here, however, we -are concerned with this privileged position of Latin grammar only in so -far as it influenced the treatment of languages in general. It did so -in more ways than one. - -Latin was a language with a wealth of flexional forms, and in -describing other languages the same categories as were found in Latin -were applied as a matter of course, even where there was nothing in -these other languages which really corresponded to what was found in -Latin. In English and Danish grammars paradigms of noun declension -were given with such cases as accusative, dative and ablative, in -spite of the fact that no separate forms for these cases had existed -for centuries. All languages were indiscriminately saddled with the -elaborate Latin system of tenses and moods in the verbs, and by means -of such Procrustean methods the actual facts of many languages were -distorted and misrepresented. Discriminations which had no foundation -in reality were nevertheless insisted on, while discriminations which -happened to be non-existent in Latin were apt to be overlooked. The -mischief consequent on this unfortunate method of measuring all -grammar after the pattern of Latin grammar has not even yet completely -disappeared, and it is even now difficult to find a single grammar of -any language that is not here and there influenced by the Latin bias. - -Latin was chiefly taught as a written language (witness the totally -different manner in which Latin was pronounced in the different -countries, the consequence being that as early as the sixteenth century -French and English scholars were unable to understand each other’s -spoken Latin). This led to the almost exclusive occupation with letters -instead of sounds. The fact that all language is primarily spoken -and only secondarily written down, that the real life of language is -in the mouth and ear and not in the pen and eye, was overlooked, to -the detriment of a real understanding of the essence of language and -linguistic development; and very often where the spoken form of a -language was accessible scholars contented themselves with a reading -knowledge. In spite of many efforts, some of which go back to the -sixteenth century, but which did not become really powerful till the -rise of modern phonetics in the nineteenth century, the fundamental -significance of spoken as opposed to written language has not yet been -fully appreciated by all linguists. There are still too many writers -on philological questions who have evidently never tried to think in -sounds instead of thinking in letters and symbols, and who would -probably be sorely puzzled if they were to pronounce all the forms that -come so glibly to their pens. What Sweet wrote in 1877 in the preface -to his _Handbook of Phonetics_ is perhaps less true now than it was -then, but it still contains some elements of truth. “Many instances,” -he said, “might be quoted of the way in which important philological -facts and laws have been passed over or misrepresented through the -observer’s want of phonetic training. Schleicher’s failing to observe -the Lithuanian accents, or even to comprehend them when pointed out -by Kurschat, is a striking instance.” But there can be no doubt that -the way in which Latin has been for centuries made the basis of all -linguistic instruction is largely responsible for the preponderance of -eye-philology to ear-philology in the history of our science. - -We next come to a point which to my mind is very important, because it -concerns something which has had, and has justly had, enduring effects -on the manner in which language, and especially grammar, is viewed and -taught to this day. What was the object of teaching Latin in the Middle -Ages and later? Certainly not the purely scientific one of imparting -knowledge for knowledge’s own sake, apart from any practical use or -advantage, simply in order to widen the spiritual horizon and to obtain -the joy of pure intellectual understanding. For such a purpose some -people with scientific leanings may here and there take up the study -of some out-of-the-way African or American idiom. But the reasons for -teaching and learning Latin were not so idealistic. Latin was not -even taught and learnt solely with the purpose of opening the doors -to the old classical or to the more recent religious literature in -that language, but chiefly, and in the first instance, because Latin -was a practical and highly important means of communication between -educated people. One had to learn not only to read Latin, but also -to write Latin, if one wanted to maintain no matter how humble a -position in the republic of learning or in the hierarchy of the Church. -Consequently, grammar was not (even primarily) the science of how words -were inflected and how forms were used by the old Romans, but chiefly -and essentially the art of inflecting words and of using the forms -yourself, if you wanted to write correct Latin. This you must say, and -these faults you must avoid--such were the lessons imparted in the -schools. Grammar was not a set of facts observed but of rules to be -observed, and of paradigms, i.e. of patterns, to be followed. Sometimes -this character of grammatical instruction is expressly indicated in the -form of the precepts given, as in such memorial verses as this: “Tolle -_-me_, _-mi_, _-mu_, _-mis_, Si declinare _domus_ vis!” In other words, -grammar was _prescriptive_ rather than _descriptive_. - -The current definition of grammar, therefore, was “ars bene dicendi et -bene scribendi,” “l’art de bien dire et de bien écrire,” the art of -speaking and writing correctly. J. C. Scaliger said, “Grammatici unus -finis est recte loqui.” To attain to correct diction (‘good grammar’) -and to avoid faulty diction (‘bad grammar’), such were the two objects -of grammatical teaching. Now, the same point of view, in which the two -elements of ‘art’ and of ‘correctness’ entered so largely, was applied -not only to Latin, but to other languages as well, when the various -vernaculars came to be treated grammatically. - -The vocabulary, too, was treated from the same point of view. This -is especially evident in the case of the dictionaries issued by the -French and Italian Academies. They differ from dictionaries as now -usually compiled in being not collections of all and any words their -authors could get hold of within the limits of the language concerned, -but in being selections of words deserving the recommendations of -the best arbiters of taste and therefore fit to be used in the -highest literature by even the most elegant or fastidious writers. -Dictionaries thus understood were less descriptions of actual usage -than prescriptions for the best usage of words. - -The normative way of viewing language is fraught with some great -dangers which can only be avoided through a comprehensive knowledge of -the historic development of languages and of the general conditions of -linguistic psychology. Otherwise, the tendency everywhere is to draw -too narrow limits for what is allowable or correct. In many cases one -form, or one construction, only is recognized, even where two or more -are found in actual speech; the question which is to be selected as -the only good form comes to be decided too often by individual fancy -or predilection, where no scientific tests can yet be applied, and -thus a form may often be proscribed which from a less narrow point -of view might have appeared just as good as, or even better than, -the one preferred in the official grammar or dictionary. In other -instances, where two forms were recognized, the grammarian wanted to -give rules for their discrimination, and sometimes on the basis of -a totally inadequate induction he would establish nice distinctions -not really warranted by actual usage--distinctions which subsequent -generations had to learn at school with the sweat of their brows and -which were often considered most important in spite of their intrinsic -insignificance. Such unreal or half-real subtle distinctions are the -besetting sin of French grammarians from the ‘grand siècle’ onwards, -while they have played a much less considerable part in England, where -people have been on the whole more inclined to let things slide as best -they may on the ‘laissez faire’ principle, and where no Academy was -ever established to regulate language. But even in English rules are -not unfrequently given in schools and in newspaper offices which are -based on narrow views and hasty generalizations. Because a preposition -at the end of a sentence may in some instances be clumsy or unwieldy, -this is no reason why a final preposition should always and under all -circumstances be considered a grave error. But it is of course easier -for the schoolmaster to give an absolute and inviolable rule once -and for all than to study carefully all the various considerations -that might render a qualification desirable. If the ordinary books -on _Common Faults in Writing and Speaking English_ and similar works -in other languages have not even now assimilated the teachings of -Comparative and Historic Linguistics, it is no wonder that the -grammarians of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, with whom -we are here concerned, should be in many ways guided by narrow and -insufficient views on what ought to determine correctness of speech. - -Here also the importance given to the study of Latin was sometimes -harmful; too much was settled by a reference to Latin rules, even where -the modern languages really followed rules of their own that were -opposed to those of Latin. The learning of Latin grammar was supposed -to be, and to some extent really was, a schooling in logic, as the -strict observance of the rules of any foreign language is bound to be; -but the consequence of this was that when questions of grammatical -correctness were to be settled, too much importance was often given -to purely logical considerations, and scholars were sometimes apt -to determine what was to be called ‘logical’ in language according -to whether it was or was not in conformity with Latin usage. This -disposition, joined with the unavoidable conservatism of mankind, and -more particularly of teachers, would in many ways prove a hindrance to -natural developments in a living speech. But we must again take up the -thread of the history of linguistic theory. - - -I.--§ 3. Eighteenth-century Speculation. Herder. - -The problem of a natural origin of language exercised some of the -best-known thinkers of the eighteenth century. Rousseau imagined the -first men setting themselves more or less deliberately to frame a -language by an agreement similar to (or forming part of) the _contrat -social_ which according to him was the basis of all social order. There -is here the obvious difficulty of imagining how primitive men who had -been previously without any speech came to feel the want of language, -and how they could agree on what sound was to represent what idea -without having already some means of communication. Rousseau’s whole -manner of putting and of viewing the problem is evidently too crude to -be of any real importance in the history of linguistic science. - -Condillac is much more sensible when he tries to imagine how a -speechless man and a speechless woman might be led quite naturally to -acquire something like language, starting with instinctive cries and -violent gestures called forth by strong emotions. Such cries would come -to be associated with elementary feelings, and new sounds might come -to indicate various objects if produced repeatedly in connexion with -gestures showing what objects the speaker wanted to call attention to. -If these two first speaking beings had as yet very little power to vary -their sounds, their child would have a more flexible tongue, and would -therefore be able to, and be impelled to, produce some new sounds, the -meaning of which his parents would guess at, and which they in their -turn would imitate; thus gradually a greater and greater number of -words would come into existence, generation after generation working -painfully to enrich and develop what had been already acquired, until -it finally became a real language. - -The profoundest thinker on these problems in the eighteenth century -was Johann Gottfried Herder, who, though he did little or nothing in -the way of scientific research, yet prepared the rise of linguistic -science. In his prize essay on the _Origin of Language_ (1772) Herder -first vigorously and successfully attacks the orthodox view of his -age--a view which had been recently upheld very emphatically by one -Süssmilch--that language could not have been invented by man, but -was a direct gift from God. One of Herder’s strongest arguments is -that if language had been framed by God and by Him instilled into the -mind of man, we should expect it to be much more logical, much more -imbued with pure reason than it is as an actual matter of fact. Much -in all existing languages is so chaotic and ill-arranged that it could -not be God’s work, but must come from the hand of man. On the other -hand, Herder does not think that language was really ‘invented’ by -man--although this was the word used by the Berlin Academy when opening -the competition in which Herder’s essay gained the prize. Language -was not deliberately framed by man, but sprang of necessity from his -innermost nature; the genesis of language according to him is due to -an impulse similar to that of the mature embryo pressing to be born. -Man, in the same way as all animals, gives vent to his feelings in -tones, but this is not enough; it is impossible to trace the origin of -human language to these emotional cries alone. However much they may be -refined and fixed, without understanding they can never become human, -conscious language. Man differs from brute animals not in degree or in -the addition of new powers, but in a totally different direction and -development of all powers. Man’s inferiority to animals in strength and -sureness of instinct is compensated by his wider sphere of attention; -the whole disposition of his mind as an unanalysable entity constitutes -the impassable barrier between him and the lower animals. Man, then, -shows conscious reflexion when among the ocean of sensations that -rush into his soul through all the senses he singles out one wave and -arrests it, as when, seeing a lamb, he looks for a distinguishing mark -and finds it in the bleating, so that next time when he recognizes the -same animal he imitates the sound of bleating, and thereby creates a -name for that animal. Thus the lamb to him is ‘the bleater,’ and nouns -are created from verbs, whereas, according to Herder, if language had -been the creation of God it would inversely have begun with nouns, -as that would have been the logically ideal order of procedure. -Another characteristic trait of primitive languages is the crossing -of various shades of feeling and the necessity of expressing thoughts -through strong, bold metaphors, presenting the most motley picture. -“The genetic cause lies in the poverty of the human mind and in the -flowing together of the emotions of a primitive human being.” Another -consequence is the wealth of synonyms in primitive language; “alongside -of real poverty it has the most unnecessary superfluity.” - -When Herder here speaks of primitive or ‘original’ languages, he is -thinking of Oriental languages, and especially of Hebrew. “We should -never forget,” says Edward Sapir,[1] “that Herder’s time-perspective -was necessarily very different from ours. While we unconcernedly take -tens or even hundreds of thousands of years in which to allow the -products of human civilization to develop, Herder was still compelled -to operate with the less than six thousand years that orthodoxy -stingily doled out. To us the two or three thousand years that -separate our language from the Old Testament Hebrew seems a negligible -quantity, when speculating on the origin of language in general; -to Herder, however, the Hebrew and the Greek of Homer seemed to be -appreciably nearer the oldest conditions than our vernaculars--hence -his exaggeration of their _ursprünglichkeit_.” - -Herder’s chief influence on the science of speech, to my mind, is not -derived directly from the ideas contained in his essay on the actual -origin of speech, but rather indirectly through the whole of his life’s -work. He had a very strong sense of the value of everything that had -grown naturally (das naturwüchsige); he prepared the minds of his -countrymen for the manysided receptiveness of the Romanticists, who -translated and admired the popular poetry of a great many countries, -which had hitherto been _terræ incognitæ_; and he was one of the first -to draw attention to the great national value of his own country’s -medieval literature and its folklore, and thus was one of the spiritual -ancestors of Grimm. He sees the close connexion that exists between -language and primitive poetry, or that kind of spontaneous singing -that characterizes the childhood or youth of mankind, and which is -totally distinct from the artificial poetry of later ages. But to him -each language is not only the instrument of literature, but itself -literature and poetry. A nation speaks its soul in the words it -uses. Herder admires his own mother-tongue, which to him is perhaps -inferior to Greek, but superior to its neighbours. The combinations of -consonants give it a certain measured pace; it does not rush forward, -but walks with the firm carriage of a German. The nice gradation of -vowels mitigates the force of the consonants, and the numerous spirants -make the German speech pleasant and endearing. Its syllables are rich -and firm, its phrases are stately, and its idiomatic expressions are -emphatic and serious. Still in some ways the present German language -is degenerate if compared with that of Luther, and still more with -that of the Suabian Emperors, and much therefore remains to be done -in the way of disinterring and revivifying the powerful expressions -now lost. Through ideas like these Herder not only exercised a strong -influence on Goethe and the Romanticists, but also gave impulses to -the linguistic studies of the following generation, and caused many -younger men to turn from the well-worn classics to fields of research -previously neglected. - - -I.--§ 4. Jenisch. - -Where questions of correct language or of the best usage are dealt -with, or where different languages are compared with regard to their -efficiency or beauty, as is done very often, though more often in -dilettante conversation or in casual remarks in literary works than -in scientific linguistic disquisitions, it is no far cry to the -question, What would an ideal language be like? But such is the -matter-of-factness of modern scientific thought, that probably no -scientific Academy in our own days would think of doing what the -Berlin Academy did in 1794 when it offered a prize for the best essay -on the ideal of a perfect language and a comparison of the best-known -languages of Europe as tested by the standard of such an ideal. A -Berlin pastor, D. Jenisch, won the prize, and in 1796 brought out -his book under the title _Philosophisch-kritische vergleichung und -würdigung von vierzehn ältern und neuern sprachen Europens_--a book -which is even now well worth reading, the more so because its subject -has been all but completely neglected in the hundred and twenty years -that have since intervened. In the Introduction the author has the -following passage, which might be taken as the motto of Wilhelm v. -Humboldt, Steinthal, Finck and Byrne, who do not, however, seem to -have been inspired by Jenisch: “In language the whole intellectual and -moral essence of a man is to some extent revealed. ‘Speak, and you are’ -is rightly said by the Oriental. The language of the natural man is -savage and rude, that of the cultured man is elegant and polished. As -the Greek was subtle in thought and sensuously refined in feeling--as -the Roman was serious and practical rather than speculative--as the -Frenchman is popular and sociable--as the Briton is profound and the -German philosophic--so are also the languages of each of these nations.” - -Jenisch then goes on to say that language as the organ for -communicating our ideas and feelings accomplishes its end if it -represents idea and feeling according to the actual want or need of -the mind at the given moment. We have to examine in each case the -following essential qualities of the languages compared, (1) richness, -(2) energy or emphasis, (3) clearness, and (4) euphony. Under the head -of richness we are concerned not only with the number of words, first -for material objects, then for spiritual and abstract notions, but -also with the ease with which new words can be formed (lexikalische -bildsamkeit). The energy of a language is shown in its lexicon and in -its grammar (simplicity of grammatical structure, absence of articles, -etc.), but also in “the characteristic energy of the nation and its -original writers.” Clearness and definiteness in the same way are shown -in vocabulary and grammar, especially in a regular and natural syntax. -Euphony, finally, depends not only on the selection of consonants and -vowels utilized in the language, but on their harmonious combination, -the general impression of the language being more important than any -details capable of being analysed. - -These, then, are the criteria by which Greek and Latin and a number of -living languages are compared and judged. The author displays great -learning and a sound practical knowledge of many languages, and his -remarks on the advantages and shortcomings of these are on the whole -judicious, though often perhaps too much stress is laid on the literary -merits of great writers, which have really no intrinsic connexion -with the value of a language as such. It depends to a great extent on -accidental circumstances whether a language has been or has not been -used in elevated literature, and its merits should be estimated, so far -as this is possible, independently of the perfection of its literature. -Jenisch’s prejudice in that respect is shown, for instance, when -he says (p. 36) that the endeavours of Hickes are entirely futile, -when he tries to make out regular declensions and conjugations in the -barbarous language of Wulfila’s translation of the Bible. But otherwise -Jenisch is singularly free from prejudices, as shown by a great number -of passages in which other languages are praised at the expense of -his own. Thus, on p. 396, he declares German to be the most repellent -contrast to that most supple modern language, French, on account of -its unnatural word-order, its eternally trailing article, its want of -participial constructions, and its interminable auxiliaries (as in ‘ich -werde geliebt werden, ich würde geliebt worden sein,’ etc.), with the -frequent separation of these auxiliaries from the main verb through -extraneous intermediate words, all of which gives to German something -incredibly awkward, which to the reader appears as lengthy and diffuse -and to the writer as inconvenient and intractable. It is not often -that we find an author appraising his own language with such severe -impartiality, and I have given the passage also to show what kind of -problems confront the man who wishes to compare the relative value of -languages as wholes. Jenisch’s view here forms a striking contrast to -Herder’s appreciation of their common mother-tongue. - -Jenisch’s book does not seem to have been widely read by -nineteenth-century scholars, who took up totally different problems. -Those few who read it were perhaps inclined to say with S. Lefmann (see -his book on Franz Bopp, Nachtrag, 1897, p. xi) that it is difficult to -decide which was the greater fool, the one who put this problem or the -one who tried to answer it. This attitude, however, towards problems -of valuation in the matter of languages is neither just nor wise, -though it is perhaps easy to see how students of comparative grammar -were by the very nature of their study led to look down upon those -who compared languages from the point of view of æsthetic or literary -merits. Anyhow, it seems to me no small merit to have been the first -to treat such problems as these, which are generally answered in an -off-hand way according to a loose general judgement, so as to put them -on a scientific footing by examining in detail what it is that makes -us more or less instinctively prefer one language, or one turn or -expression in a language, and thus lay the foundation of that inductive -æsthetic theory of language which has still to be developed in a truly -scientific spirit. - -FOOTNOTE: - -[1] See his essay on Herder’s “Ursprung der sprache” in _Modern -Philology_, 5. 117 (1907). - - - - -CHAPTER II - -BEGINNING OF NINETEENTH CENTURY - - § 1. Introduction. Sanskrit. § 2. Friedrich von Schlegel. § 3. Rasmus - Rask. § 4. Jacob Grimm. § 5. The Sound Shift. § 6. Franz Bopp. § 7. - Bopp continued. § 8. Wilhelm von Humboldt. § 9. Grimm once more. - - -II.--§ 1. Introduction. Sanskrit. - -The nineteenth century witnessed an enormous growth and development -of the science of language, which in some respects came to present -features totally unknown to previous centuries. The horizon was -widened; more and more languages were described, studied and examined, -many of them for their own sake, as they had no important literature. -Everywhere a deeper insight was gained into the structures even of -such languages as had been for centuries objects of study; a more -comprehensive and more incisive classification of languages was -obtained with a deeper understanding of their mutual relationships, -and at the same time linguistic forms were not only described and -analysed, but also explained, their genesis being traced as far back -as historical evidence allowed, if not sometimes further. Instead of -contenting itself with stating when and where a form existed and how -it looked and was employed, linguistic science now also began to ask -why it had taken that definite shape, and thus passed from a purely -descriptive to an explanatory science. - -The chief innovation of the beginning of the nineteenth century was -the historical point of view. On the whole, it must be said that -it was reserved for that century to apply the notion of history to -other things than wars and the vicissitudes of dynasties, and thus to -discover the idea of development or evolution as pervading the whole -universe. This brought about a vast change in the science of language, -as in other sciences. Instead of looking at such a language as Latin -as one fixed point, and instead of aiming at fixing another language, -such as French, in one classical form, the new science viewed both as -being in constant flux, as growing, as moving, as continually changing. -It cried aloud like Heraclitus “Pánta reî,” and like Galileo “Eppur si -muove.” And lo! the better this historical point of view was applied, -the more secrets languages seemed to unveil, and the more light seemed -also to be thrown on objects outside the proper sphere of language, -such as ethnology and the early history of mankind at large and of -particular countries. - -It is often said that it was the discovery of Sanskrit that was the -real turning-point in the history of linguistics, and there is some -truth in this assertion, though we shall see on the one hand that -Sanskrit was not in itself enough to give to those who studied it the -true insight into the essence of language and linguistic science, and -on the other hand that real genius enabled at least one man to grasp -essential truths about the relationships and development of languages -even without a knowledge of Sanskrit. Still, it must be said that -the first acquaintance with this language gave a mighty impulse to -linguistic studies and exerted a lasting influence on the way in which -most European languages were viewed by scholars, and it will therefore -be necessary here briefly to sketch the history of these studies. India -was very little known in Europe till the mighty struggle between the -French and the English for the mastery of its wealth excited a wide -interest also in its ancient culture. It was but natural that on this -intellectual domain, too, the French and the English should at first be -rivals and that we should find both nations represented in the pioneers -of Sanskrit scholarship. The French Jesuit missionary Cœurdoux as -early as 1767 sent to the French Institut a memoir in which he called -attention to the similarity of many Sanskrit words with Latin, and -even compared the flexion of the present indicative and subjunctive -of Sanskrit _asmi_, ‘I am,’ with the corresponding forms of Latin -grammar. Unfortunately, however, his work was not printed till forty -years later, when the same discovery had been announced independently -by others. The next scholar to be mentioned in this connexion is Sir -William Jones, who in 1796 uttered the following memorable words, -which have often been quoted in books on the history of linguistics: -“The Sanscrit language, whatever be its antiquity, is of a wonderful -structure; more perfect than the Greek, more copious than the Latin -and more exquisitely refined than either; yet bearing to both of them -a stronger affinity, both in the roots of verbs and in the forms -of grammar, than could possibly have been produced by accident; so -strong, indeed, that no philologer could examine them all three without -believing them to have sprung from some common source, which, perhaps, -no longer exists. There is a similar reason, though not quite so -forcible, for supposing that both the Gothic and the Celtic ... had the -same origin with the Sanscrit; and the old Persian might be added to -the same family.” Sir W. Jones, however, did nothing to carry out in -detail the comparison thus inaugurated, and it was reserved for younger -men to follow up the clue he had given. - - -II.--§ 2. Friedrich von Schlegel. - -One of the books that exercised a great influence on the development -of linguistic science in the beginning of the nineteenth century was -Friedrich von Schlegel’s _Ueber die sprache und weisheit der Indier_ -(1808). Schlegel had studied Sanskrit for some years in Paris, and -in his romantic enthusiasm he hoped that the study of the old Indian -books would bring about a revolution in European thought similar to -that produced in the Renaissance through the revival of the study -of Greek. We are here concerned exclusively with his linguistic -theories, but to his mind they were inseparable from Indian religion -and philosophy, or rather religious and philosophic poetry. He is -struck by the similarity between Sanskrit and the best-known European -languages, and gives quite a number of words from Sanskrit found with -scarcely any change in German, Greek and Latin. He repudiates the idea -that these similarities might be accidental or due to borrowings on -the side of the Indians, saying expressly that the proof of original -relationship between these languages, as well as of the greater age -of Sanskrit, lies in the far-reaching correspondences in the whole -grammatical structure of these as opposed to many other languages. -In this connexion it is noticeable that he is the first to speak -of ‘comparative grammar’ (p. 28), but, like Moses, he only looks -into this promised land without entering it. Indeed, his method of -comparison precludes him from being the founder of the new science, -for he says himself (p. 6) that he will refrain from stating any rules -for change or substitution of letters (sounds), and require complete -identity of the words used as proofs of the descent of languages. He -adds that in other cases, “where intermediate stages are historically -demonstrable, we may derive _giorno_ from _dies_, and when Spanish so -often has _h_ for Latin _f_, or Latin _p_ very often becomes _f_ in -the German form of the same word, and _c_ not rarely becomes _h_ [by -the way, an interesting foreshadowing of one part of the discovery -of the Germanic sound-shifting], then this may be the foundation of -analogical conclusions with regard to other less evident instances.” If -he had followed up this idea by establishing similar ‘sound-laws,’ as -we now say, between Sanskrit and other languages, he would have been -many years ahead of his time; as it is, his comparisons are those of -a dilettante, and he sometimes falls into the pitfalls of accidental -similarities while overlooking the real correspondences. He is also -led astray by the idea of a particularly close relationship between -Persian and German, an idea which at that time was widely spread[2]--we -find it in Jenisch and even in Bopp’s first book. - -Schlegel is not afraid of surveying the whole world of human languages; -he divides them into two classes, one comprising Sanskrit and its -congeners, and the second all other languages. In the former he finds -organic growth of the roots as shown by their capability of inner -change or, as he terms it, ‘flexion,’ while in the latter class -everything is effected by the addition of affixes (prefixes and -suffixes). In Greek he admits that it would be possible to believe in -the possibility of the grammatical endings (bildungssylben) having -arisen from particles and auxiliary words amalgamated into the word -itself, but in Sanskrit even the last semblance of this possibility -disappears, and it becomes necessary to confess that the structure of -the language is formed in a thoroughly organic way through flexion, -i.e. inner changes and modifications of the radical sound, and not -composed merely mechanically by the addition of words and particles. -He admits, however, that affixes in some other languages have brought -about something that resembles real flexion. On the whole he finds that -the movement of grammatical art and perfection (der gang der bloss -grammatischen kunst und ausbildung, p. 56) goes in opposite directions -in the two species of languages. In the organic languages, which -represent the highest state, the beauty and art of their structure is -apt to be lost through indolence; and German as well as Romanic and -modern Indian languages show this degeneracy when compared with the -earlier forms of the same languages. In the affix languages, on the -other hand, we see that the beginnings are completely artless, but the -‘art’ in them grows more and more perfect the more the affixes are -fused with the main word. - -As to the question of the ultimate origin of language, Schlegel -thinks that the diversity of linguistic structure points to different -beginnings. While some languages, such as Manchu, are so interwoven -with onomatopœia that imitation of natural sounds must have played -the greatest rôle in their formation, this is by no means the case in -other languages, and the perfection of the oldest organic or flexional -languages, such as Sanskrit, shows that they cannot be derived from -merely animal sounds; indeed, they form an additional proof, if any -such were needed, that men did not everywhere start from a brutish -state, but that the clearest and intensest reason existed from the -very first beginning. On all these points Schlegel’s ideas foreshadow -views that are found in later works; and it is probable that his fame -as a writer outside the philological field gave to his linguistic -speculations a notoriety which his often loose and superficial -reasonings would not otherwise have acquired for them. - -Schlegel’s bipartition of the languages of the world carries in it -the germ of a tripartition. On the lowest stage of his second class -he places Chinese, in which, as he acknowledges, the particles -denoting secondary sense modifications consist in monosyllables that -are completely independent of the actual word. It is clear that -from Schlegel’s own point of view we cannot here properly speak of -‘affixes,’ and thus Chinese really, though Schlegel himself does not -say so, falls outside his affix languages and forms a class by itself. -On the other hand, his arguments for reckoning Semitic languages among -affix languages are very weak, and he seems also somewhat inclined -to say that much in their structure resembles real flexion. If we -introduce these two changes into his system, we arrive at the threefold -division found in slightly different shapes in most subsequent works -on general linguistics, the first to give it being perhaps Schlegel’s -brother, A. W. Schlegel, who speaks of (1) les langues sans aucune -structure grammaticale--under which misleading term he understands -Chinese with its unchangeable monosyllabic words; (2) les langues qui -emploient des affixes; (3) les langues à inflexions. - -Like his brother, A. W. Schlegel places the flexional languages highest -and thinks them alone ‘organic.’ On the other hand, he subdivides -flexional languages into two classes, synthetic and analytic, the -latter using personal pronouns and auxiliaries in the conjugation of -verbs, prepositions to supply the want of cases, and adverbs to express -the degrees of comparison. While the origin of the synthetic languages -loses itself in the darkness of ages, the analytic languages have -been created in modern times; all those that we know are due to the -decomposition of synthetic languages. These remarks on the division of -languages are found in the Introduction to the book _Observations sur -la langue et la littérature provençale_ (1818) and are thus primarily -meant to account for the contrast between synthetic Latin and analytic -Romanic. - - -II.--§ 3. Rasmus Rask. - -We now come to the three greatest names among the initiators of -linguistic science in the beginning of the nineteenth century. If we -give them in their alphabetical order, Bopp, Grimm and Rask, we also -give them in the order of merit in which most subsequent historians -have placed them. The works that constitute their first claims to the -title of founder of the new science came in close succession, Bopp’s -_Conjugationssystem_ in 1816, Rask’s _Undersøgelse_ in 1818, and the -first volume of Grimm’s _Grammatik_ in 1819. While Bopp is entirely -independent of the two others, we shall see that Grimm was deeply -influenced by Rask, and as the latter’s contributions to our science -began some years before his chief work just mentioned (which had also -been finished in manuscript in 1814, thus two years before Bopp’s -_Conjugationssystem_), the best order in which to deal with the three -men will perhaps be to take Rask first, then to mention Grimm, who in -some ways was his pupil, and finally to treat of Bopp: in this way we -shall also be enabled to see Bopp in close relation with the subsequent -development of Comparative Grammar, on which he, and not Rask, exerted -the strongest influence. - -Born in a peasant’s hut in the heart of Denmark in 1787, Rasmus Rask -was a grammarian from his boyhood. When a copy of the _Heimskringla_ -was given him as a school prize, he at once, without any grammar or -dictionary, set about establishing paradigms, and so, before he left -school, acquired proficiency in Icelandic, as well as in many other -languages. At the University of Copenhagen he continued in the same -course, constantly widened his linguistic horizon and penetrated into -the grammatical structure of the most diverse languages. Icelandic -(Old Norse), however, remained his favourite study, and it filled him -with enthusiasm and national pride that “our ancestors had such an -excellent language,” the excellency being measured chiefly by the full -flexional system which Icelandic shared with the classical tongues, -partly also by the pure, unmixed state of the Icelandic vocabulary. His -first book (1811) was an Icelandic grammar, an admirable production -when we consider the meagre work done previously in this field. With -great lucidity he reduces the intricate forms of the language into -a consistent system, and his penetrating insight into the essence -of language is seen when he explains the vowel changes, which we -now comprise under the name of mutation or umlaut, as due to the -approximation of the vowel of the stem to that of the ending, at that -time a totally new point of view. This we gather from Grimm’s review, -in which Rask’s explanation is said to be “more astute than true” -(“mehr scharfsinnig als wahr,” _Kleinere schriften_, 7. 515). Rask -even sees the reason of the change in the plural _blöð_ as against the -singular _blað_ in the former having once ended in _-u_, which has -since disappeared. This is, so far as I know, the first inference ever -drawn to a prehistoric state of language. - -In 1814, during a prolonged stay in Iceland, Rask sent down to -Copenhagen his most important work, the prize essay on the origin of -the Old Norse language (_Undersøgelse om det gamle nordiske eller -islandske sprogs oprindelse_) which for various reasons was not -printed till 1818. If it had been published when it was finished, and -especially if it had been printed in a language better known than -Danish, Rask might well have been styled the founder of the modern -science of language, for his work contains the best exposition of the -true method of linguistic research written in the first half of the -nineteenth century and applies this method to the solution of a long -series of important questions. Only one part of it was ever translated -into another language, and this was unfortunately buried in an appendix -to Vater’s _Vergleichungstafeln_, 1822. Yet Rask’s work even now repays -careful perusal, and I shall therefore give a brief résumé of its -principal contents. - -Language according to Rask is our principal means of finding out -anything about the history of nations before the existence of written -documents, for though everything may change in religion, customs, -laws and institutions, language generally remains, if not unchanged, -yet recognizable even after thousands of years. But in order to find -out anything about the relationship of a language we must proceed -methodically and examine its whole structure instead of comparing mere -details; what is here of prime importance is the grammatical system, -because words are very often taken over from one language to another, -but very rarely grammatical forms. The capital error in most of what -has been written on this subject is that this important point has been -overlooked. That language which has the most complicated grammar is -nearest to the source; however mixed a language may be, it belongs to -the same family as another if it has the most essential, most material -and indispensable words in common with it; pronouns and numerals are in -this respect most decisive. If in such words there are so many points -of agreement between two languages that it is possible to frame rules -for the transitions of letters (in other passages Rask more correctly -says sounds) from the one language to the other, there is a fundamental -kinship between the two languages, more particularly if there are -corresponding similarities in their structure and constitution. This -is a most important thesis, and Rask supplements it by saying that -transitions of sounds are naturally dependent on their organ and manner -of production. - -Next Rask proceeds to apply these principles to his task of finding out -the origin of the Old Icelandic language. He describes its position -in the ‘Gothic’ (Gothonic, Germanic) group and then looks round to -find congeners elsewhere. He rapidly discards Greenlandic and Basque -as being too remote in grammar and vocabulary; with regard to Keltic -languages he hesitates, but finally decides in favour of denying -relationship. (He was soon to see his error in this; see below.) -Next he deals at some length with Finnic and Lapp, and comes to the -conclusion that the similarities are due to loans rather than to -original kinship. But when he comes to the Slavonic languages his -utterances have a different ring, for he is here able to disclose -so many similarities in fundamentals that he ranges these languages -within the same great family as Icelandic. The same is true with -regard to Lithuanian and Lettic, which are here for the first time -correctly placed as an independent sub-family, though closely akin -to Slavonic. The comparisons with Latin, and especially with Greek, -are even more detailed; and Rask in these chapters really presents us -with a succinct, but on the whole marvellously correct, comparative -grammar of Gothonic, Slavonic, Lithuanian, Latin and Greek, besides -examining numerous lexical correspondences. He does not yet know any -of the related Asiatic languages, but throws out the hint that Persian -and Indian may be the remote source of Icelandic through Greek. Greek -he considers to be the ‘source’ or ‘root’ of the Gothonic languages, -though he expresses himself with a degree of uncertainty which -forestalls the correct notion that these languages have all of them -sprung from the same extinct and unknown language. This view is very -clearly expressed in a letter he wrote from St. Petersburg in the same -year in which his _Undersøgelse_ was published; he here says: “I divide -our family of languages in this way: the Indian (Dekanic, Hindostanic), -Iranic (Persian, Armenian, Ossetic), Thracian (Greek and Latin), -Sarmatian (Lettic and Slavonic), Gothic (Germanic and Skandinavian) and -Keltic (Britannic and Gaelic) tribes” (SA 2. 281, dated June 11, 1818). - -This is the fullest and clearest account of the relationships of our -family of languages found for many years, and Rask showed true genius -in the way in which he saw what languages belonged together and how -they were related. About the same time he gave a classification of the -Finno-Ugrian family of languages which is pronounced by such living -authorities on these languages as Vilhelm Thomsen and Emil Setälä to be -superior to most later attempts. When travelling in India he recognized -the true position of Zend, about which previous scholars had held the -most erroneous views, and his survey of the languages of India and -Persia was thought valuable enough in 1863 to be printed from his -manuscript, forty years after it was written. He was also the first -to see that the Dravidian (by him called Malabaric) languages were -totally different from Sanskrit. In his short essay on Zend (1826) he -also incidentally gave the correct value of two letters in the first -cuneiform writing, and thus made an important contribution towards the -final deciphering of these inscriptions. - -His long tour (1816-23) through Sweden, Finland, Russia, the Caucasus, -Persia and India was spent in the most intense study of a great -variety of languages, but unfortunately brought on the illness and -disappointments which, together with economic anxieties, marred the -rest of his short life. - -When Rask died in 1832 he had written a great number of grammars of -single languages, all of them remarkable for their accuracy in details -and clear systematic treatment, more particularly of morphology, -and some of them breaking new ground; besides his Icelandic grammar -already mentioned, his Anglo-Saxon, Frisian and Lapp grammars should -be specially named. Historical grammar in the strict sense is perhaps -not his forte, though in a remarkable essay of the year 1815 he -explains historically a great many features of Danish grammar, and in -his Spanish and Italian grammars he in some respects forestalls Diez’s -historical explanations. But in some points he stuck to erroneous -views, a notable instance being his system of old Gothonic ‘long -vowels,’ which was reared on the assumption that modern Icelandic -pronunciation reflects the pronunciation of primitive times, while -it is really a recent development, as Grimm saw from a comparison of -all the old languages. With regard to consonants, however, Rask was -the clearer-sighted of the two, and throughout he had this immense -advantage over most of the comparative linguists of his age, that he -had studied a great many languages at first hand with native speakers, -while the others knew languages chiefly or exclusively through the -medium of books and manuscripts. In no work of that period, or even of -a much later time, are found so many first-hand observations of living -speech as in Rask’s _Retskrivningslære_. Handicapped though he was in -many ways, by poverty and illness and by the fact that he wrote in -a language so little known as Danish, Rasmus Rask, through his wide -outlook, his critical sagacity and aversion to all fanciful theorizing, -stands out as one of the foremost leaders of linguistic science.[3] - - -II.--§ 4. Jacob Grimm. - -Jacob Grimm’s career was totally different from Rask’s. Born in 1785 -as the son of a lawyer, he himself studied law and came under the -influence of Savigny, whose view of legal institutions as the outcome -of gradual development in intimate connexion with popular tradition and -the whole intellectual and moral life of the people appealed strongly -to the young man’s imagination. But he was drawn even more to that -study of old German popular poetry which then began to be the fashion, -thanks to Tieck and other Romanticists; and when he was in Paris to -assist Savigny with his historico-legal research, the old German -manuscripts in the Bibliothèque nationale nourished his enthusiasm for -the poetical treasures of the Middle Ages. He became a librarian and -brought out his first book, _Ueber den altdeutschen meistergesang_ -(1811). At the same time, with his brother Wilhelm as constant -companion and fellow-worker, he began collecting popular traditions, -of which he published a first instalment in his famous _Kinder- und -hausmärchen_ (1812 ff.), a work whose learned notes and comparisons -may be said to have laid the foundation of the science of folklore. -Language at first had only a subordinate interest to him, and when -he tried his hand at etymology, he indulged in the wildest guesses, -according to the method (or want of method) of previous centuries. -A. W. Schlegel’s criticism of his early attempts in this field, and -still more Rask’s example, opened Grimm’s eyes to the necessity of a -stricter method, and he soon threw himself with great energy into a -painstaking and exact study of the oldest stages of the German language -and its congeners. In his review (1812) of Rask’s Icelandic grammar he -writes: “Each individuality, even in the world of languages, should be -respected as sacred; it is desirable that even the smallest and most -despised dialect should be left only to itself and to its own nature -and in nowise subjected to violence, because it is sure to have some -secret advantages over the greatest and most highly valued language.” -Here we meet with that valuation of the hitherto overlooked popular -dialects which sprang from the Romanticists’ interest in the ‘people’ -and everything it had produced. Much valuable linguistic work was -directly inspired by this feeling and by conscious opposition to the -old philology, that occupied itself exclusively with the two classical -languages and the upper-class literature embodied in them. As Scherer -expresses it (_Jacob Grimm_, 2te ausg., Berlin, 1885, p. 152): “The -brothers Grimm applied to the old national literature and to popular -traditions the old philological virtue of exactitude, which had up to -then been bestowed solely on Greek and Roman classics and on the Bible. -They extended the field of strict philology, as they extended the field -of recognized poetry. They discarded the aristocratic narrowmindedness -with which philologists looked down on unwritten tradition, on popular -ballads, legends, fairy tales, superstition, nursery rimes.... In the -hands of the two Grimms philology became national and popular; and at -the same time a pattern was created for the scientific study of all the -peoples of the earth and for a comparative investigation of the entire -mental life of mankind, of which written literature is nothing but a -small epitome.” - -But though Grimm thus broke loose from the traditions of classical -philology, he still carried with him one relic of it, namely the -standard by which the merits of different languages were measured. -“In reading carefully the old Gothonic (altdeutschen) sources, I was -every day discovering forms and perfections which we generally envy -the Greeks and Romans when we consider the present condition of our -language.”... “Six hundred years ago every rustic knew, that is to say -practised daily, perfections and niceties in the German language of -which the best grammarians nowadays do not even dream; in the poetry of -Wolfram von Eschenbach and of Hartmann von Aue, who had never heard of -declension and conjugation, nay who perhaps did not even know how to -read and write, many differences in the flexion and use of nouns and -verbs are still nicely and unerringly observed, which we have gradually -to rediscover in learned guise, but dare not reintroduce, for language -ever follows its inalterable course.” - -Grimm then sets about writing his great historical and comparative -_Deutsche Grammatik_, taking the term ‘deutsch’ in its widest and -hardly justifiable sense of what is now ordinarily called Germanic -and which is in this work called Gothonic. The first volume appeared -in 1819, and in the preface we see that he was quite clear that he -was breaking new ground and introducing a new method of looking at -grammar. He speaks of previous German grammars and says expressly that -he does not want his to be ranged with them. He charges them with -unspeakable pedantry; they wanted to dogmatize magisterially, while to -Grimm language, like everything natural and moral, is an unconscious -and unnoticed secret which is implanted in us in youth. Every German -therefore who speaks his language naturally, i.e. untaught, may call -himself his own living grammar and leave all schoolmasters’ rules -alone. Grimm accordingly has no wish to prescribe anything, but to -observe what has grown naturally, and very appropriately he dedicates -his work to Savigny, who has taught him how institutions grow in the -life of a nation. In the new preface to the second edition there are -also some noteworthy indications of the changed attitude. “I am hostile -to general logical notions in grammar; they conduce apparently to -strictness and solidity of definition, but hamper observation, which I -take to be the soul of linguistic science.... As my starting-point was -to trace the never-resting (unstillstehende) element of our language -which changes with time and place, it became necessary for me to admit -one dialect after the other, and I could not even forbear to glance at -those foreign languages that are ultimately related with ours.” - -Here we have the first clear programme of that historical school -which has since then been the dominating one in linguistics. But as -language according to this new point of view was constantly changing -and developing, so also, during these years, were Grimm’s own ideas. -And the man who then exercised the greatest influence on him was Rasmus -Rask. When Grimm wrote the first edition of his _Grammatik_ (1819), -he knew nothing of Rask but the Icelandic grammar, but just before -finishing his own volume Rask’s prize essay reached him, and in the -preface he at once speaks of it in the highest terms of praise, as he -does also in several letters of this period; he is equally enthusiastic -about Rask’s Anglo-Saxon grammar and the Swedish edition of his -Icelandic grammar, neither of which reached him till after his own -first volume had been printed off. The consequence was that instead of -going on to the second volume, Grimm entirely recast the first volume -and brought it out in a new shape in 1822. The chief innovation was the -phonology or, as he calls it, “Erstes buch. Von den buchstaben,” which -was entirely absent in 1819, but now ran to 595 pages. - - -II.--§ 5. The Sound Shift. - -This first book in the 1822 volume contains much, perhaps most, of -what constitutes Grimm’s fame as a grammarian, notably his exposition -of the ‘sound shift’ (lautverschiebung), which it has been customary -in England since Max Müller to term ‘Grimm’s Law.’ If any one man is -to give his name to this law, a better name would be ‘Rask’s Law,’ for -all these transitions, Lat. Gr. _p_ = _f_, _t_ = _þ_ (_th_), _k_ = _h_, -etc., are enumerated in Rask’s _Undersøgelse_, p. 168, which Grimm knew -before he wrote a single word about the sound shift. - -Now, it is interesting to compare the two scholars’ treatment of these -transitions. The sober-minded, matter-of-fact Rask contents himself -with a bare statement of the facts, with just enough well-chosen -examples to establish the correspondence; the way in which he arranges -the sounds shows that he saw their parallelism clearly enough, though -he did not attempt to bring everything under one single formula, any -more than he tried to explain why these sounds had changed.[4] Grimm -multiplies the examples and then systematizes the whole process in one -formula so as to comprise also the ‘second shift’ found in High German -alone--a shift well known to Rask, though treated by him in a different -place (p. 68 f.). Grimm’s formula looks thus: - - Greek p b f | t d th | k g ch - Gothic f p b | th t d | h k g - High G. b(v) f p | d z t | g ch k, - -which may be expressed generally thus, that tenuis (T) becomes aspirate -(A) and then media (M), etc., or, tabulated: - - Greek T M A - Gothic A T M - High G. M A T. - -For this Grimm would of course have deserved great credit, because a -comprehensive formula is more scientific than a rough statement of -facts--_if_ the formula had been correct; but unfortunately it is not -so. In the first place, it breaks down in the very first instance, for -there is no media in High German corresponding to Gr. _p_ and Gothic -_f_ (cf. _poûs_, _fotus_, _fuss_, etc.); secondly, High German has _h_ -just as Gothic has, corresponding to Greek _k_ (cf. _kardía_, _hairto_, -_herz_, etc.), and where it has _g_, Gothic has also _g_ in accordance -with rules unknown to Grimm and not explained till long afterwards (by -Verner). But the worst thing is that the whole specious generalization -produces the impression of regularity and uniformity only through the -highly unscientific use of the word ‘aspirate,’ which is made to cover -such phonetically disparate things as (1) combination of stop with -following _h_, (2) combination of stop with following fricative, _pf_, -_ts_ written _z_, (3) voiceless fricative, _f_, _s_ in G. _das_, (4) -voiced fricative, _v_, _ð_ written _th_, and (5) _h_. Grimm rejoiced in -his formula, giving as it does three chronological stages in each of -the three subdivisions (tenuis, media, aspirate) of each of the three -classes of consonants (labial, dental, ‘guttural’). This evidently -took hold of his fancy through the mystic power of the number three, -which he elsewhere (Gesch 1. 191, cf. 241) finds pervading language -generally: three original vowels, _a_, _i_, _u_, three genders, three -numbers (singular, dual, plural), three persons, three ‘voices’ -(genera: active, middle, passive), three tenses (present, preterit, -future), three declensions through _a_, _i_, _u_. As there is here -an element of mysticism, so is there also in Grimm’s highflown -explanation of the whole process from pretended popular psychology, -which is full of the cloudiest romanticism. “When once the language -had made the first step and had rid itself of the organic basis of its -sounds, it was hardly possible for it to escape the second step and -not to arrive at the third stage,[5] through which this development -was perfected.... It is impossible not to admire the instinct by which -the linguistic spirit (sprachgeist) carried this out to the end. A -great many sounds got out of joint, but they always knew how to arrange -themselves in a different place and to find the new application of the -old law. I am not saying that the shift happened without any detriment, -nay from one point of view the sound shift appears to me as a barbarous -aberration, from which other more quiet nations abstained, but which -is connected with the violent progress and craving for freedom which -was found in Germany in the beginning of the Middle Ages and which -initiated the transformation of Europe. The Germans pressed forward -even in the matter of the innermost sounds of their language,” etc., -with remarks on intellectual progress and on victorious and ruling -races. Grimm further says that “die dritte stufe des verschobnen lauts -den kreislauf abschliesse und nach ihr ein neuer ansatz zur abweichung -wieder von vorn anheben müsse. Doch eben weil der sprachgeist seinen -lauf vollbracht hat, scheint er nicht wieder neu beginnen zu wollen” -(GDS 1. 292 f., 299). It would be difficult to attach any clear ideas -to these words. - -Grimm’s idea of a ‘kreislauf’ is caused by the notion that the two -shifts, separated by several centuries, represent one continued -movement, while the High German shift of the eighth century has really -no more to do with the primitive Gothonic shift, which took place -probably some time before Christ, than has, for instance, the Danish -shift in words like _gribe_, _bide_, _bage_, from _gripæ_, _bitæ_, -_bakæ_ (about 1400), or the still more recent transition in Danish -through which stressed _t_ in _tid_, _tyve_, etc., sounds nearly like -[ts], as in HG. _zeit_. There cannot possibly be any causal nexus -between such transitions, separated chronologically by long periods, -with just as little change in the pronunciation of these consonants as -there has been in English.[6] - -Grimm was anything but a phonetician, and sometimes says things which -nowadays cannot but produce a smile, as when he says (Gr 1. 3) “in our -word _schrift_, for instance, we express eight sounds through seven -signs, for _f_ stands for _ph_”; thus he earnestly believes that _sch_ -contains three sounds, _s_ and the ‘aspirate’ _ch_ = _c_ + _h_! Yet -through the irony of fate it was on the history of sounds that Grimm -exercised the strongest influence. As in other parts of his grammar, so -also in the “theory of letters” he gave fuller word lists than people -had been accustomed to, and this opened the eyes of scholars to the -great regularity reigning in this department of linguistic development. -Though in his own etymological practice he was far from the strict idea -of ‘phonetic law’ that played such a prominent rôle in later times, he -thus paved the way for it. He speaks of law at any rate in connexion -with the consonant shift, and there recognizes that it serves to curb -wild etymologies and becomes a test for them (Gesch 291). The consonant -shift thus became _the_ law in linguistics, and because it affected a -great many words known to everybody, and in a new and surprising way -associated well-known Latin or Greek words with words of one’s own -mother-tongue, it became popularly the keystone of a new wonderful -science. - -Grimm coined several of the terms now generally used in linguistics; -thus _umlaut_ and _ablaut_, ‘strong’ and ‘weak’ declensions and -conjugations. As to the first, we have seen that it was Rask who first -understood and who taught Grimm the cause of this phenomenon, which -in English has often been designated by the German term, while Sweet -calls it ‘mutation’ and others better ‘infection.’ With regard to -‘ablaut’ (Sweet: gradation, best perhaps in English apophony), Rask -termed it ‘omlyd,’ a word which he never applied to Grimm’s ‘umlaut,’ -thus keeping the two kinds of vowel change as strictly apart as Grimm -does. Apophony was first discovered in that class of verbs which -Grimm called ‘strong’; he was fascinated by the commutation of the -vowels in _springe_, _sprang_, _gesprungen_, and sees in it, as in -_bimbambum_, something mystic and admirable, characteristic of the old -German spirit. He was thus blind to the correspondences found in other -languages, and his theory led him astray in the second volume, in which -he constructed imaginary verbal roots to explain apophony wherever it -was found outside the verbs. - -Though Grimm, as we have seen, was by his principles and whole tendency -averse to prescribing laws for a language, he is sometimes carried -away by his love for mediæval German, as when he gives as the correct -nominative form _der boge_, though everybody for centuries had said -_der bogen_. In the same way many of his followers would apply the -historical method to questions of correctness of speech, and would -discard the forms evolved in later times in favour of previously -existing forms which were looked upon as more ‘organic.’ - -It will not be necessary here to speak of the imposing work done by -Grimm in the rest of his long life, chiefly spent as a professor in -Berlin. But in contrast to the ordinary view I must say that what -appears to me as most likely to endure is his work on syntax, contained -in the fourth volume of his grammar and in monographs. Here his -enormous learning, his close power of observation, and his historical -method stand him in good stead, and there is much good sense and -freedom from that kind of metaphysical systematism which was triumphant -in contemporaneous work on classical syntax. His services in this field -are the more interesting because he did not himself seem to set much -store by these studies and even said that syntax was half outside the -scope of grammar. This utterance belongs to a later period than that of -the birth of historical and comparative linguistics, and we shall have -to revert to it after sketching the work of the third great founder of -this science, to whom we shall now turn. - - -II.--§ 6. Franz Bopp. - -The third, by some accounted the greatest, among the founders of modern -linguistic science was Franz Bopp. His life was uneventful. At the age -of twenty-one (he was born in 1791) he went to Paris to study Oriental -languages, and soon concentrated his attention on Sanskrit. His first -book, from which it is customary in Germany to date the birth of -Comparative Philology, appeared in 1816, while he was still in Paris, -under the title _Ueber des conjugationssystem der sanskritsprache in -vergleichung mit jenem der griechischen, lateinischen, persischen und -germanischen sprache_, but the latter part of the small volume was -taken up with translations from Sanskrit, and for a long time he was -just as much a Sanskrit scholar, editing and translating Sanskrit -texts, as a comparative grammarian. He showed himself in the latter -character in several papers read before the Berlin Academy, after he -had been made a professor there in 1822, and especially in his famous -_Vergleichende grammatik des sanskrit, ṣend, armenischen, griechischen, -lateinischen, litauischen, altslawischen, gotischen und deutschen_, the -first edition of which was published between 1833 and 1849, the second -in 1857, and the third in 1868. Bopp died in 1867. - -Of Bopp’s _Conjugationssystem_ a revised, rearranged and greatly -improved English translation came out in 1820 under the title -_Analytical Comparison of the Sanskrit, Greek, Latin and Teutonic -Languages_. This was reprinted with a good introduction by F. Techmer -in his _Internationale zeitschrift für allgem. sprachwissenschaft IV_ -(1888), and in the following remarks I shall quote this (abbreviated -AC) instead of, or alongside of, the German original (abbreviated C). - -Bopp’s chief aim (and in this he was characteristically different -from Rask) was to find out the ultimate origin of grammatical forms. -He follows his quest by the aid of Sanskrit forms, though he does not -consider these as the ultimate forms themselves: “I do not believe that -the Greek, Latin, and other European languages are to be considered as -derived from the Sanskrit in the state in which we find it in Indian -books; I feel rather inclined to consider them altogether as subsequent -variations of one original tongue, which, however, the Sanskrit has -preserved more perfect than its kindred dialects. But whilst therefore -the language of the Brahmans more frequently enables us to conjecture -the primitive form of the Greek and Latin languages than what we -discover in the oldest authors and monuments, the latter on their side -also may not unfrequently elucidate the Sanskrit grammar” (AC 3). -Herein subsequent research has certainly borne out Bopp’s view. - -After finding out by a comparison of the grammatical forms of -Sanskrit, Greek, etc., which of these forms were identical and what -were their oldest shapes, he tries to investigate the ultimate origin -of these forms. This he takes to be a comparatively easy consequence -of the first task, but he was here too much under the influence of -the philosophical grammar then in vogue. Gottfried Hermann (_De -emendanda ratione Græcæ grammaticæ_, 1801), on purely logical grounds, -distinguishes three things as necessary elements of each sentence, the -subject, the predicate, and the copula joining the first two elements -together; as the power of the verb is to attribute the predicate to -the subject, there is really only one verb, namely the verb _to be_. -Bopp’s teacher in Paris, Silvestre de Sacy, says the same thing, and -Bopp repeats: “A verb, in the most restricted meaning of the term, is -that part of speech by which a subject is connected with its attribute. -According to this definition it would appear that there can exist only -one verb, namely, the substantive verb, in Latin _esse_; in English, -_to be_.... Languages of a structure similar to that of the Greek, -Latin, etc., can express by one verb of this kind a whole logical -proposition, in which, however, that part of speech which expresses -the connexion of the subject with its attribute, which is the -characteristic function of the verb, is generally entirely omitted or -understood. The Latin verb _dat_ expresses the proposition ‘he gives,’ -or ‘he is giving’: the letter _t_, indicating the third person, is the -subject, _da_ expresses the attribute of giving, and the grammatical -_copula_ is understood. In the verb _potest_, the latter is expressed, -and _potest_ unites in itself the three essential parts of speech, _t_ -being the subject, _es_ the copula, and _pot_ the attribute.” - -Starting from this logical conception of grammar, Bopp is inclined to -find everywhere the ‘substantive verb’ _to be_ in its two Sanskrit -forms _as_ and _bhu_ as an integral part of verbal forms. He is not -the first to think that terminations, which are now inseparable parts -of a verb, were originally independent words; thus Horne Tooke (in -_Epea pteroenta_, 1786, ii. 429) expressly says that “All those common -terminations in any language ... are themselves separate words with -distinct meanings,” and explains, for instance, Latin _ibo_ from _i_, -‘_go_’ + _b_, ‘_will_,’ from Greek _boúl(omai)_ + _o_ ‘_I_,’ from -_ego_. Bopp’s explanations are similar to this, though they do not -imply such violent shortenings as that of _boúl(omai)_ to _b_. -He finds the root Sanskrit _as_, ‘to be,’ in Latin perfects like -_scrip-s-i_, in Greek aorists like _e-tup-s-a_ and in futures like -_tup-s-o_. That the same addition thus indicates different tenses does -not trouble Bopp greatly; he explains Lat. _fueram_ from _fu_ + _es_ + -_am_, etc., and says that the root _fu_ “contains, properly, nothing -to indicate past time, but the usage of language having supplied the -want of an adequate inflexion, _fui_ received the sense of a perfect, -and _fu-eram_, which would be nothing more than an imperfect, that of -a pluperfect, and after the same manner _fu-ero_ signifies ‘I shall -have been,’ instead of ‘I shall be’” (AC 57). All Latin verbal endings -containing _r_ are thus explained as being ultimately formed with the -substantive verb (_ama-rem_, etc.); thus among others the infinitives -_fac-ere_, _ed-ere_, as well as _esse_, _posse_: “_E_ is properly, in -Latin, the termination of a simple infinitive active; and the root _Es_ -produced anciently _ese_, by adding _e_; the _s_ having afterwards been -doubled, we have _esse_. This termination _e_ answers to the Greek -infinitive in _ai_, _eînai_ ...” (AC 58). - -If Bopp found a master-key to many of the verbal endings in the -Sanskrit root _es_, he found a key to many others in the other root of -the verb ‘to be,’ Sanskrit _bhu_. He finds it in the Latin imperfect -_da-bam_, as well as in the future _da-bo_, the relation between which -is the same as that between _er-am_ and _er-o_. “_Bo_, _bis_, _bit_ -has a striking similarity with the Anglo-Saxon _beo_, _bys_, _byth_, -the future tense of the verb substantive, a similarity which cannot -be considered as merely accidental.” [Here neither the form nor the -function of the Anglo-Saxon is stated quite correctly.] But the ending -in Latin _ama-vi_ is also referred to the same root; for the change -of the _b_ into _v_ we are referred to Italian _amava_, from Lat. -_amabam_; thus also _fui_ is for _fuvi_ and _potui_ is for _pot-vi_: -“languages manifest a constant effort to combine heterogeneous -materials in such a manner as to offer to the ear or eye one perfect -whole, like a statue executed by a skilful artist, that wears the -appearance of a figure hewn out of one piece of marble” (AC 60). - -The following may be taken as a fair specimen of the method followed -in these first attempts to account for the origin of flexional forms: -“The Latin passive forms _amat-ur_, _amant-ur_, would, in some measure, -conform to this mode of joining the verb substantive, if the _r_ was -also the result of a permutation of an original _s_; and this appears -not quite incredible, if we compare the second person _ama-ris_ with -the third _amat-ur_. Either in one or the other there must be a -transposition of letters, to which the Latin language is particularly -addicted. If _ama-ris_, which might have been produced from _ama-sis_, -has preserved the original order of letters, then _ama-tur_ must be -the transposition of _ama-rut_ or _ama-sut_, and _ama-ntur_ that of -_ama-runt_ or _ama-sunt_. If this be the case, the origin of the -Latin passive can be accounted for, and although differing from that -of the Sanskrit, Greek, and Gothic languages, it is not produced by -the invention of a new grammatical form. It becomes clear, also, why -many verbs, with a passive form, have an active signification; because -there is no reason why the addition of the verb substantive should -necessarily produce a passive sense. There is another way of explaining -_ama-ris_, if it really stands for _ama-sis_; the _s_ may be the -radical consonant of the reflex pronoun _se_. The introduction of this -pronoun would be particularly adapted to form the middle voice, which -expresses the reflexion of the action upon the actor; but the Greek -language exemplifies the facility with which the peculiar signification -of the middle voice passes into that of the passive.” The reasoning in -the beginning of this passage (the only one contained in C) carries -us back to a pre-scientific atmosphere, of which there are few or -no traces in Rask’s writings; the latter explanation (added in AC) -was preferred by Bopp himself in later works, and was for many years -accepted as the correct one, until scholars found a passive in _r_ in -Keltic, where the transition from _s_ to _r_ is not found as it is in -Latin; and as the closely corresponding forms in Keltic and Italic must -obviously be explained in the same way, the hypothesis of a composition -with _se_ was generally abandoned. Bopp’s partiality for the abstract -verb is seen clearly when he explains the Icelandic passive in _-st_ -from _s_ = _es_ (C 132); here Rask and Grimm saw the correct and -obvious explanation. - -Among the other explanations given first by Bopp must be mentioned the -Latin second person of the passive voice _-mini_, as in _ama-mini_, -which he takes to be the nominative masculine plural of a participle -corresponding to Greek _-menos_ and found in a different form in Lat. -_alumnus_ (AC 51). This explanation is still widely accepted, though -not by everybody. - -With regard to the preterit of what Grimm was later to term the ‘weak’ -verbs, Bopp vacillates between different explanations. In C 118 he -thinks the _t_ or _d_ is identical with the ending of the participle, -in which the case endings were omitted and supplanted by personal -endings; the syllable _ed_ after _d_ [in Gothic _sok-id-edum_; ‘Greek,’ -p. 119, must be a misprint for Gothic] is nothing but an accidental -addition. But on p. 151 he sees in _sokidedun_, _sokidedi_, a connexion -of _sok_ with the preterit of the verb _Tun_, as if the Germans were -to say _suchetaten_, _suchetäte_; he compares the English use of _did_ -(_did seek_), and thinks the verb used is G. _tun_, Goth. _tanjan_. -The theory of composition is here restricted to those forms that -contain two _d’s_, i.e. the plural indicative and the subjunctive. In -the English edition this twofold explanation is repeated with some -additions: _d_ or _t_ as in Gothic _sok-i-da_ and _oh-ta_ originates -from a participle found in Sanskr. _tyak-ta_, _likh-i-ta_, Lat. -_-tus_, Gr. _-tós_; this suffix generally has a passive sense, but in -neuter verbs an active sense, and therefore would naturally serve to -form a preterit tense with an active signification. He finds a proof -of the connexion between this preterit and the participle in the -fact that only such verbs as have this ending in the participle form -their preterit by means of a dental, while the others (the ‘strong’ -verbs, as Grimm afterwards termed them) have a participle in _an_ and -reduplication or a change of vowel in the preterit; and Bopp compares -the Greek aorist passive _etúphth-ēn_, _edóth-ēn_, which he conceives -may proceed from the participle _tuphth-eís_, _doth-eís_ (AC 37 ff.). -This suggestion seems to have been commonly overlooked or abandoned, -while the other explanation, from _dedi_ as in English _did seek_, -which Bopp gives p. 49 for the subjunctive and the indicative plural, -was accepted by Grimm as the explanation of all the forms, even of -those containing only one dental; in later works Bopp agreed with -Grimm and thus gave up the first part of his original explanation. The -_did_ explanation had been given already by D. von Stade (d. 1718, see -Collitz, _Das schwache präteritum_, p. 1); Rask (P 270, not mentioned -by Collitz) says: “Whence this _d_ or _t_ has come is not easy to tell, -as it is not found in Latin and Greek, but as it is evident from the -Icelandic grammar that it is closely connected with the past participle -and is also found in the preterit subjunctive, it seems clear that it -must have been an old characteristic of the past tense in every mood, -but was lost in Greek when the above-mentioned participles in _tos_ -disappeared from the verbs” (cf. Ch. XIX § 12). - -With regard to the vowels, Bopp in AC has the interesting theory that -it is only through a defect in the alphabet that Sanskrit appears to -have _a_ in so many places; he believes that the spoken language had -often “the short Italian _e_ and _o_,” where _a_ was written. “If this -was the case, we can give a reason why, in words common to the Sanskrit -and Greek, the Indian _akāra_ [that is, short _a_] so often corresponds -to ε and ο, as, for instance, _asti_, he is, ἐστί; _patis_, husband, -πόσις; _ambaras_, sky, ὄμβρος, rain, etc.” Later, unfortunately, Bopp -came under the influence of Grimm, who, as we saw, on speculative -grounds admitted in the primitive language only the three vowels -_a_, _i_, _u_, and Bopp and his followers went on believing that -the Sanskrit _a_ represented the original state of language, until -the discovery of the ‘palatal law’ (about 1880) showed (what Bopp’s -occasional remark might otherwise easily have led up to, if he had not -himself discarded it) that the Greek tripartition into _a_, _e_, _o_ -represented really a more original state of things. - - -II.--§ 7. Bopp continued. - -In a chapter on the roots in AC (not found in C), Bopp contrasts -the structure of Semitic roots and of our own; in Semitic languages -roots must consist of three letters, neither more nor less, and thus -generally contain two syllables, while in Sanskrit, Greek, etc., -the character of the root “is not to be determined by the number of -letters, but by that of the syllables, of which they contain only one”; -thus a root like _i_, ‘to go,’ would be unthinkable in Arabic. The -consequence of this structure of the roots is that the inner changes -which play such a large part in expressing grammatical modifications -in Semitic languages must be much more restricted in our family of -languages. These changes were what F. Schlegel termed flexions and -what Bopp himself, two years before (C 7), had named “the truly -organic way” of expressing relation and mentioned as a wonderful -flexibility found in an extraordinary degree in Sanskrit, by the side -of which composition with the verb ‘to be’ is found only occasionally. -Now, however, in 1820, Bopp repudiates Schlegel’s and his own -previous assumption that ‘flexion’ was characteristic of Sanskrit in -contradistinction to other languages in which grammatical modifications -were expressed by the addition of suffixes. On the contrary, while -holding that both methods are employed in all languages, Chinese -perhaps alone excepted, he now thinks that it is the suffix method -which is prevalent in Sanskrit, and that “the only real inflexions -... possible in a language, whose elements are monosyllables, are -the change of their vowels and the repetition of their radical -consonants, otherwise called reduplication.” It will be seen that Bopp -here avoids both the onesidedness found in Schlegel’s division of -languages and the other onesidedness which we shall encounter in later -theories, according to which _all_ grammatical elements are originally -independent subordinate roots added to the main root. - -In his _Vocalismus_ (1827, reprinted 1836) Bopp opposes Grimm’s theory -that the changes for which Grimm had introduced the term _ablaut_ were -due to psychological causes; in other words, possessed an inner meaning -from the very outset. Bopp inclined to a mechanical explanation[7] -and thought them dependent on the weight of the endings, as shown by -the contrast between Sanskr. _vēda_, Goth. _vait_, Gr. _oîda_ and the -plural, respectively _vidima_, _vitum_, _ídmen_. In this instance -Bopp is in closer agreement than Grimm with the majority of younger -scholars, who see in apophony (ablaut) an originally non-significant -change brought about mechanically by phonetic conditions, though they -do not find these in the ‘weight’ of the ending, but in the primeval -accent: the accentuation of Sanskrit was not known to Bopp when he -wrote his essay. - -The personal endings of the verbs had already been identified with -the corresponding pronouns by Scheidius (1790) and Rask (P 258); -Bopp adopts the same view, only reproaching Scheidius for thinking -exclusively of the nominative forms of the pronouns. - -It thus appears that in his early work Bopp deals with a great -many general problems, but his treatment is suggestive rather than -exhaustive or decisive, for there are too many errors in details -and his whole method is open to serious criticism. A modern reader -is astonished to see the facility with which violent changes of -sounds, omissions and transpositions of consonants, etc., are -gratuitously accepted. Bopp never reflected as deeply as Rask did -on what constitutes linguistic kinship, hence in C he accepts the -common belief that Persian was related more closely to German than -to Sanskrit, and in later life he tried to establish a relationship -between the Malayo-Polynesian and the Indo-European languages. But in -spite of all this it must be recognized that in his long laborious -life he accomplished an enormous amount of highly meritorious work, -not only in Sanskrit philology, but also in comparative grammar, in -which he gradually freed himself of his worst methodical errors. He was -constantly widening his range of vision, taking into consideration more -and more cognate languages. The ingenious way in which he explained the -curious Keltic shiftings in initial consonants (which had so puzzled -Rask as to make him doubt of a connexion of these languages with our -family, but which Bopp showed to be dependent on a lost final sound of -the preceding word) definitely and irrefutably established the position -of those languages. Among other things that might be credited to his -genius, I shall select his explanation of the various declensional -classes as determined by the final sound of the stem. But it is not -part of my plan to go into many details; suffice it to say that Bopp’s -great _Vergleichende grammatik_ served for long years as the best, or -really the only, exposition of the new science, and vastly contributed -not only to elucidate obscure points, but also to make comparative -grammar as popular as it is possible for such a necessarily abstruse -science to be. - -In Bopp’s _Vergleichende grammatik_ (1. § 108) he gives his -classification of languages in general. He rejects Fr. Schlegel’s -bipartition, but his growing tendency to explain everything in Aryan -grammar, even the inner changes of Sanskrit roots, by mechanical -causes makes him modify A. W. Schlegel’s tripartition and place our -family of languages with the second instead of the third class. His -three classes are therefore as follows: I. Languages without roots -proper and without the power of composition, and thus without organism -or grammar; to this class belongs Chinese, in which most grammatical -relations are only to be recognized by the position of the words. II. -Languages with monosyllabic roots, capable of composition and acquiring -their organism, their grammar, nearly exclusively in this way; the main -principle of word formation is the connexion of verbal and pronominal -roots. To this class belong the Indo-European languages, but also -all languages not comprised under the first or the third class. III. -Languages with disyllabic roots and three necessary consonants as sole -bearers of the signification of the word. This class includes only the -Semitic languages. Grammatical forms are here created not only by means -of composition, as in the second class, but also by inner modification -of the roots. - -It will be seen that Bopp here expressly avoids both expressions -‘agglutination’ and ‘flexion,’ the former because it had been used -of languages contrasted with Aryan, while Bopp wanted to show the -essential identity of the two classes; the latter because it had been -invested with much obscurity on account of Fr. Schlegel’s use of it -to signify inner modification only. According to Schlegel, only such -instances as English _drink_ / _drank_ / _drunk_ are pure flexion, -while German _trink-e_ / _trank_ / _ge-trunk-en_, and still more Greek -_leip-ō_ / _e-lip-on_ / _le-loip-a_, besides an element of ‘flexion’ -contain also affixed elements. It is clear that no language can use -‘flexion’ (in Schlegel’s sense) exclusively, and consequently this -cannot be made a principle on which to erect a classification of -languages generally. Schlegel’s use of the term ‘flexion’ seems to have -been dropped by all subsequent writers, who use it so as to include -what is actually found in the grammar of such languages as Sanskrit and -Greek, comprising under it inner and outer modifications, but of course -not requiring both in the same form. - -In view of the later development of our science, it is worthy of notice -that neither in the brothers Schlegel nor in Bopp do we yet meet -with the idea that the classes set up are not only a distribution of -the languages found side by side in the world at this time, but also -represent so many stages in historical development; indeed, Bopp’s -definitions are framed so as positively to exclude any development from -his Class II to Class III, as the character of the underlying roots -is quite heterogeneous. On the other hand, Bopp’s tendency to explain -Aryan endings from originally independent roots paved the way for the -theory of isolation, agglutination and flexion as three successive -stages of the same language. - -In his first work (C 56) Bopp had already hinted that in the earliest -period known to us languages had already outlived their most perfect -state and were in a process of decay; and in his review of Grimm (1827) -he repeats this: “We perceive them in a condition in which they may -indeed be progressive syntactically, but have, as far as grammar is -concerned, lost more or less of what belonged to the perfect structure, -in which the separate members stand in exact relation to each other -and in which everything derived has still a visible and unimpaired -connexion with its source” (Voc. 2). We shall see kindred ideas in -Humboldt and Schleicher. - -To sum up: Bopp set about discovering the ultimate origin of flexional -elements, but instead of that he discovered Comparative Grammar--“à peu -près comme Christophe Colomb a découvert l’Amérique en cherchant la -route des Indes,” as A. Meillet puts it (LI 413). A countryman of Rask -may be forgiven for pushing the French scholar’s brilliant comparison -still further: in the same way as Norsemen from Iceland had discovered -America before Columbus, without imagining that they were finding the -way to India, just so Rasmus Rask through his Icelandic studies had -discovered Comparative Grammar before Bopp, without needing to take the -circuitous route through Sanskrit. - - -II.--§ 8. Wilhelm von Humboldt. - -This will be the proper place to mention one of the profoundest -thinkers in the domain of linguistics, Wilhelm von Humboldt -(1767-1835), who, while playing an important part in the political -world, found time to study a great many languages and to think deeply -on many problems connected with philology and ethnography.[8] - -In numerous works, the most important of which, _Ueber die Kawisprache -auf der Insel Jawa_, with the famous introduction “Ueber die -Verschiedenheit des menschlichen Sprachbaues und ihren Einfluss auf -die geistige Entwickelung des Menschengeschlechts,” was published -posthumously in 1836-40, Humboldt developed his linguistic philosophy, -of which it is not easy to give a succinct idea, as it is largely -couched in a most abstruse style; it is not surprising that his admirer -and follower, Heymann Steinthal, in a series of books, gave as many -different interpretations of Humboldt’s thoughts, each purporting to be -more correct than its predecessors. Still, I believe the following may -be found to be a tolerably fair rendering of some of Humboldt’s ideas. - -He rightly insists on the importance of seeing in language a continued -activity. Language is not a substance or a finished work, but -action (Sie selbst ist kein werk, _ergon_, sondern eine tätigkeit, -_energeia_). Language therefore cannot be defined except genetically. -It is the ever-repeated labour of the mind to utilize articulated -sounds to express thoughts. Strictly speaking, this is a definition of -each separate act of speech; but truly and essentially a language must -be looked upon as the totality of such acts. For the words and rules, -which according to our ordinary notions make up a language, exist -really only in the act of connected speech. The breaking up of language -into words and rules is nothing but a dead product of our bungling -scientific analysis (Versch 41). Nothing in language is static, -everything is dynamic. Language has nowhere any abiding place, not even -in writing; its dead part must continually be re-created in the mind; -in order to exist it must be spoken or understood, and so pass in its -entirety into the subject (ib. 63). - -Humboldt speaks continually of languages as more perfect or less -perfect. Yet “no language should be condemned or depreciated, not -even that of the most savage tribe, for each language is a picture of -the original aptitude for language” (Versch 304). In another place he -speaks about special excellencies even of languages that cannot in -themselves be recognized as superlatively good instruments of thought. -Undoubtedly Chinese of the old style carries with it an impressive -dignity through the immediate succession of nothing but momentous -notions; it acquires a simple greatness because it throws away all -unnecessary accessory elements and thus, as it were, takes flight to -pure thinking. Malay is rightly praised for its ease and the great -simplicity of its constructions. The Semitic languages retain an -admirable art in the nice discrimination of sense assigned to many -shades of vowels. Basque possesses a particular vigour, dependent on -the briefness and boldness of expression imparted by the structure -of its words and by their combination. Delaware and other American -languages express in one word a number of ideas for which we should -require many words. The human mind is always capable of producing -something admirable, however one-sided it may be; such special points -decide nothing with regard to the rank of languages (Versch 189 f.). We -have here, as indeed continually in Humboldt, a valuation of languages -with many brilliant remarks, but on the whole we miss the concrete -details abounding in Jenisch’s work. Humboldt, as it were, lifts us -to a higher plane, where the air may be purer, but where it is also -thinner and not seldom cloudier as well. - -According to Humboldt, each separate language, even the most despised -dialect, should be looked upon as an organic whole, different from all -the rest and expressing the individuality of the people speaking it; it -is characteristic of one nation’s psyche, and indicates the peculiar -way in which that nation attempts to realize the ideal of speech. As -a language is thus symbolic of the national character of those who -speak it, very much in each language had its origin in a symbolic -representation of the notion it stands for; there is a natural nexus -between certain sounds and certain general ideas, and consequently we -often find similar sounds used for the same, or nearly the same, idea -in languages not otherwise related to one another. - -Humboldt is opposed to the idea of ‘general’ or ‘universal’ grammar as -understood in his time; instead of this purely deductive grammar he -would found an inductive general grammar, based upon the comparison of -the different ways in which the same grammatical notion was actually -expressed in a variety of languages. He set the example in his paper -on the Dual. His own studies covered a variety of languages; but his -works do not give us many actual concrete facts from the languages he -had studied; he was more interested in abstract reasonings on language -in general than in details. - -In an important paper, _Ueber das Entstehen der grammatischen Formen -und ihren Einfluss auf die Ideenentwickelung_ (1822), he says that -language at first denotes only objects, leaving it to the hearer to -understand or guess at (hinzudenken) their connexion. By and by the -word-order becomes fixed, and some words lose their independent use and -sound, so that in the second stage we see grammatical relations denoted -through word-order and through words vacillating between material -and formal significations. Gradually these become affixes, but the -connexion is not yet firm, the joints are still visible, the result -being an aggregate, not yet a unit. Thus in the third stage we have -something analogous to form, but not real form. This is achieved in the -fourth stage, where the word is _one_, only modified in its grammatical -relations through the flexional sound; each word belongs to one -definite part of speech, and form-words have no longer any disturbing -material signification, but are pure expressions of relation. Such -words as Lat. _amavit_ and Greek _epoíēsas_ are truly grammatical forms -in contradistinction to such combinations of words and syllables as -are found in cruder languages, because we have here a fusion into one -whole, which causes the signification of the parts to be forgotten and -joins them firmly under one accent. Though Humboldt thus thinks flexion -developed out of agglutination, he distinctly repudiates the idea of -a gradual development and rather inclines to something like a sudden -crystallization (see especially Steinthal’s ed., p. 585). - -Humboldt’s position with regard to the classification of languages -is interesting. In his works we continually meet with the -terms agglutination[9] and flexion by the side of a new term, -‘incorporation.’ This he finds in full bloom in many American -languages, such as Mexican, where the object may be inserted into -the verbal form between the element indicating person and the root. -Now, Humboldt says that besides Chinese, which has no grammatical -form, there are three possible forms of languages, the flexional, the -agglutinative and the incorporating, but he adds that all languages -contain one or more of these forms (Versch 301). He tends to deny the -existence of any exclusively agglutinative or exclusively flexional -language, as the two principles are generally commingled (132). Flexion -is the only method that gives to the word the true inner firmness and -at the same time distributes the parts of the sentence according to -the necessary interlacing of thoughts, and thus undoubtedly represents -the pure principle of linguistic structure. Now, the question is, -what language carries out this method in the most consistent way? -True perfection may not be found in any one language: in the Semitic -languages we find flexion in its most genuine shape, united with the -most refined symbolism, only it is not pursued consistently in all -parts of the language, but restricted by more or less accidental laws. -On the other hand, in the Sanskritic languages the compact unity of -every word saves flexion from any suspicion of agglutination; it -pervades all parts of the language and rules it in the highest freedom -(Versch 188). Compared with incorporation and with the method of -loose juxtaposition without any real word-unity, flexion appears as -an intuitive principle born of true linguistic genius (ib.). Between -Sanskrit and Chinese, as the two opposed poles of linguistic structure, -each of them perfect in the consistent following one principle, we -may place all the remaining languages (ib. 326). But the languages -called agglutinative have nothing in common except just the negative -trait that they are neither isolating nor flexional. The structural -diversities of human languages are so great that they make one despair -of a fully comprehensive classification (ib. 330). - -According to Humboldt, language is in continued development under -the influence of the changing mental power of its speakers. In this -development there are naturally two definite periods, one in which the -creative instinct of speech is still growing and active, and another -in which a seeming stagnation begins and then an appreciable decline -of that creative instinct. Still, the period of decline may initiate -new principles of life and new successful changes in a language (Versch -184). In the form-creating period nations are occupied more with the -language than with its purpose, i.e. with what it is meant to signify. -They struggle to express thought, and this craving in connexion with -the inspiring feeling of success produces and sustains the creative -power of language (ib. 191). In the second period we witness a -wearing-off of the flexional forms. This is found less in languages -reputed crude or rough than in refined ones. Language is exposed to -the most violent changes when the human mind is most active, for -then it considers too careful an observation of the modifications of -sound as superfluous. To this may be added a want of perception of the -poetic charm inherent in the sound. Thus it is the transition from -a more sensuous to a more intellectual mood that works changes in a -language. In other cases less noble causes are at work. Rougher organs -and less sensitive ears are productive of indifference to the principle -of harmony, and finally a prevalent practical trend may bring about -abbreviations and omissions of all kinds in its contempt for everything -that is not strictly necessary for the purpose of being understood. -While in the first period the elements still recall their origin to -man’s consciousness, there is an æsthetic pleasure in developing the -instrument of mental activity; but in the second period language -serves only the practical needs of life. In this way such a language -as English may reduce its forms so as to resemble the structure of -Chinese; but there will always remain traces of the old flexions; and -English is no more incapable of high excellences than German (Versch -282-6). What these are Humboldt, however, does not tell us. - - -II.--§ 9. Grimm Once More. - -Humboldt here foreshadowed and probably influenced ideas to which Jacob -Grimm gave expression in two essays written in his old age and which it -will be necessary here to touch upon. In the essay on the pedantry of -the German language (_Ueber das pedantische in der deutschen sprache_, -1847), Grimm says that he has so often praised his mother-tongue that -he has acquired the right once in a while to blame it. If pedantry had -not existed already, Germans would have invented it; it is the shadowy -side of one of their virtues, painstaking accuracy and loyalty. Grimm’s -essay is an attempt at estimating a language, but on the whole it is -less comprehensive and less deep than that of Jenisch. Grimm finds -fault with such things as the ceremoniousness with which princes are -spoken to and spoken of (_Durchlauchtigster_, _allerhöchstderselbe_), -and the use of the pronoun _Sie_ in the third person plural in -addressing a single person; he speaks of the clumsiness of the -auxiliaries for the passive, the past and the future, and of the -word-order which makes the Frenchman cry impatiently “J’attends le -verbe.” He blames the use of capitals for substantives and other -peculiarities of German spelling, but gives no general statement of the -principles on which the comparative valuation of different languages -should be based, though in many passages we see that he places the old -stages of the language very much higher than the language of his own -day. - -The essay on the origin of language (1851) is much more important, and -may be said to contain the mature expression of all Grimm’s thoughts -on the philosophy of language. Unfortunately, much of it is couched -in that high-flown poetical style which may be partly a consequence -of Grimm’s having approached the exact study of language through the -less exact studies of popular poetry and folklore; this style is -not conducive to clear ideas, and therefore renders the task of the -reporter very difficult indeed. Grimm at some length argues against -the possibility of language having been either created by God when he -created man or having been revealed by God to man after his creation. -The very imperfections and changeability of language speak against its -divine origin. Language as gradually developed must be the work of man -himself, and therein is different from the immutable cries and songs of -the lower creation. Nature and natural instinct have no history, but -mankind has. Man and woman were created as grown-up and marriageable -beings, and there must have been created at once more than one couple, -for if there had been only one couple, there would have been the -possibility that the one mother had borne only sons or only daughters, -further procreation being thus rendered impossible (!), not to mention -the moral objections to marriages between brother and sister. How these -once created beings, human in every respect except in language, were -able to begin talking and to find themselves understood, Grimm does not -really tell us; he uses such expressions as ‘inventors’ of words, but -apart from the symbolical value of some sounds, such as _l_ and _r_, -he thinks that the connexion of word and sense was quite arbitrary. On -the other hand, he can tell us a great deal about the first stage of -human speech: it contained only the three vowels _a_, _i_, _u_, and -only few consonant groups; every word was a monosyllable, and abstract -notions were at first absent. The existence in all (?) old languages -of masculine and feminine flexions must be due to the influence of -women on the formation of language. Through the distinction of genders -Grimm says that regularity and clearness were suddenly brought about in -everything concerning the noun as by a most happy stroke of fortune. -Endings to indicate person, number, tense and mood originated in added -pronouns and auxiliary words, which at first were loosely joined to -the root, but later coalesced with it. Besides, reduplication was used -to indicate the past; and after the absorption of the reduplicational -syllable the same effect was obtained in German through apophony. -All nouns presuppose verbs, whose material sense was applied to the -designation of things, as when G. _hahn_ (‘cock’) was thus called from -an extinct verb _hanan_, corresponding to Lat. _canere_, ‘to sing.’ - -In what Grimm says about the development of language it is easy to -trace the influence of Humboldt’s ideas, though they are worked out -with great originality. He discerns three stages, the last two alone -being accessible to us through historical documents. In the first -period we have the creation and growing of roots and words, in the -second the flourishing of a perfect flexion, and in the third a -tendency to thoughts, which leads to the giving up of flexion as not -yet (?) satisfactory. They may be compared to leaf, blossom and fruit, -“the beauty of human speech did not bloom in its beginning, but in its -middle period; its ripest fruits will not be gathered till some time in -the future.” He thus sums up his theory of the three stages: “Language -in its earliest form was melodious, but diffuse and straggling; in its -middle form it was full of intense poetical vigour; in our own days it -seeks to remedy the diminution of beauty by the harmony of the whole, -and is more effective though it has inferior means.” In most places -Grimm still speaks of the downward course of linguistic development; -all the oldest languages of our family “show a rich, pleasant and -admirable perfection of form, in which all material and spiritual -elements have vividly interpenetrated each other,” while in the later -developments of the same languages the inner power and subtlety of -flexion has generally been given up and destroyed, though partly -replaced by external means and auxiliary words. On the whole, then, the -history of language discloses a descent from a period of perfection to -a less perfect condition. This is the point of view that we meet with -in nearly all linguists; but there is a new note when Grimm begins -vaguely and dimly to see that the loss of flexional forms is sometimes -compensated by other things that may be equally valuable or even more -valuable; and he even, without elaborate arguments, contradicts his -own main contention when he says that “human language is retrogressive -only apparently and in particular points, but looked upon as a whole -it is progressive, and its intrinsic force is continually increasing.” -He instances the English language, which by sheer making havoc of all -old phonetic laws and by the loss of all flexions has acquired a great -force and power, such as is found perhaps in no other human language. -Its wonderfully happy structure resulted from the marriage of the two -noblest languages of Europe; therefore it was a fit vehicle for the -greatest poet of modern times, and may justly claim the right to be -called a world’s language; like the English people, it seems destined -to reign in future even more than now in all parts of the earth. This -enthusiastic panegyric forms a striking contrast to what the next great -German scholar with whom we have to deal, Schleicher, says about the -same language, which to him shows only “how rapidly the language of a -nation important both in history and literature can decline” (II. 231). - -FOOTNOTES: - -[2] It dates back to Vulcanius, 1597; see Streitberg, IF 35. 182. - -[3] I have given a life of Rask and an appraisement of his work in the -small volume _Rasmus Rask_ (Copenhagen, Gyldendal, 1918). See also -Vilh. Thomsen, _Samlede afhandlinger_, 1. 47 ff. and 125 ff. A good -and full account of Rask’s work is found in Raumer, _Gesch._; cf. also -Paul, _Gr._ Recent short appreciations of his genius may be read in -Trombetti, _Come si fa la critica_, 1907, p. 41, Meillet, LI, p. 415, -Hirt, Idg, pp. 74 and 578. - -[4] Only in one subordinate point did Rask make a mistake (_b_ = _b_), -which is all the more venial as there are extremely few examples of -this sound. Bredsdorff (_Aarsagerne_, 1821, p. 21) evidently had -the law from Rask, and gives it in the comprehensive formula which -Paul (Gr. 1. 86) misses in Rask and gives as Grimm’s meritorious -improvement on Rask. “The Germanic family has most often aspirates -where Greek has tenues, tenues where it has mediæ, and again mediæ -where it has aspirates, e.g. _fod_, Gr. _pous_; _horn_, Gr. _keras_; -_þrír_, Gr. _treis_; _padde_, Gr. _batrakhos_; _kone_, Gr. _gunē_; -_ti_, Gr. _deka_; _bærer_, Gr. _pherō_; _galde_, Gr. _kholē_; _dør_, -Gr. _thura_.” To the word ‘horn’ was appended a foot-note to the effect -that _h_ without doubt here originally was the German _ch_-sound. This -was one year before Grimm stated his law! - -[5] The muddling of the negatives is Grimm’s, not the translator’s. - -[6] I am therefore surprised to find that in a recent article (_Am. -Journ. of Philol._ 39. 415, 1918) Collitz praises Grimm’s view in -preference to Rask’s because he saw “an inherent connexion between -the various processes of the shifting,” which were “subdivisions of -one great law in which the formula T:A:M may be used to illustrate -the shifting (in a single language) of three different groups of -consonants and the result of a double or threefold shifting (in three -different languages) of a single group of consonants. This great law -was unknown to Rask.” Collitz recognizes that “Grimm’s law will hold -good only if we accept the term ‘aspirate’ in the broad sense in -which it is employed by J. Grimm”--but ‘broad’ here means ‘wrong’ or -‘unscientific.’ There is no _kreislauf_ in the case of initial _k_ = -_h_; only in a few of the nine series do we find three distinct stages -(as in _tres_, _three_, _drei_); here we have in Danish three stages, -of which the third is a reversal to the first (_tre_); in E. _mother_ -we have five stages: _t_, _þ_, _ð_, _d_, (OE. _modor_) and again _ð_. -Is there an “inherent connexion between the various processes of this -shifting” too? - -[7] Probably under the influence of Humboldt, who wrote to him -(September 1826): “Absichtlich grammatisch ist gewiss kein -vokalwechsel.” - -[8] Humboldt’s relation to Bopp’s general ideas is worth studying; see -his letters to Bopp, printed as Nachtrag to S. Lefman’s _Franz Bopp, -sein leben und seine wissenschaft_ (Berlin, 1897). He is (p. 5) on the -whole of Bopp’s opinion that flexions have arisen through agglutination -of syllables, the independent meaning of which was lost; still, he -is not certain that all flexion can be explained in that way, and -especially doubts it in the case of ‘umlaut,’ under which term he here -certainly includes ‘ablaut,’ as seen by his reference (p. 12) to Greek -future _stalô_ from _stéllō_; he adds that “some flexions are at the -same time so insignificant and so widely spread in languages that I -should be inclined to call them original; for example, our _i_ of the -dative and _m_ of the same case, both of which by their sharper sound -seem intended to call attention to the peculiar nature of this case, -which does not, like the other cases, denote a simple, but a double -relation” (repeated p. 10). Humboldt doubts Bopp’s identification of -the temporal augment with the _a_ privativum. He says (p. 14) that -cases often originate from prepositions, as in American languages and -in Basque, and that he has always explained our genitive, as in G. -_manne-s_, as a remnant of _aus_. This is evidently wrong, as the _s_ -of _aus_ is a special High German development from _t_, while the _s_ -of the genitive is also found in languages which do not share in this -development of _t_. But the remark is interesting because, apart from -the historical proof to the contrary which we happen to possess in this -case, the derivation is no whit worse than many of the explanations -resorted to by adherents of the agglutinative theory. But Humboldt goes -on to say that in Greek and Latin he is not prepared to maintain that -one single case is to be explained in this way. Humboldt probably had -some influence on Bopp’s view of the weak preterit, for he is skeptical -with regard to the _did_ explanation and inclines to connect the ending -with the participle in _t_. - -[9] Humboldt seems to be the inventor of this term (1821; see -Streitberg, IF 35. 191). - - - - -CHAPTER III - -MIDDLE OF NINETEENTH CENTURY - - § 1. After Bopp and Grimm. § 2. K. M. Rapp. § 3. J. H. Bredsdorff. - § 4. August Schleicher. § 5. Classification of Languages. § 6. - Reconstruction. § 7. Curtius, Madvig and Specialists. § 8. Max Müller - and Whitney. - - -III.--§ 1. After Bopp and Grimm. - -Bopp and Grimm exercised an enormous influence on linguistic thought -and linguistic research in Germany and other countries. Long even -before their death we see a host of successors following in the main -the lines laid down in their work, and thus directly and indirectly -they determined the development of this science for a long time. -Through their efforts so much new light had been shed on a number of -linguistic phenomena that these took a quite different aspect from that -which they had presented to the previous generation; most of what had -been written about etymology and kindred subjects in the eighteenth -century seemed to the new school utterly antiquated, mere fanciful -vagaries of incompetent blunderers, whereas now scholars had found firm -ground on which to raise a magnificent structure of solid science. This -feeling was especially due to the undoubted recognition of one great -family of languages to which the vast majority of European languages, -as well as some of the most important Asiatic languages, belonged: here -we had one firmly established fact of the greatest magnitude, which -at once put an end to all the earlier whimsical attempts to connect -Latin and Greek words with Hebrew roots. As for the name of that family -of languages, Rask hesitated between different names, ‘European,’ -‘Sarmatic’ and finally ‘Japhetic’ (as a counterpart of the Semitic -and the Hamitic languages); Bopp at first had no comprehensive name, -and on the title-page of his _Vergl. grammatik_ contents himself with -enumerating the chief languages described, but in the work itself he -says that he prefers the name ‘Indo-European,’ which has also found -wide acceptance, though more in France, England and Skandinavia than -in Germany. Humboldt for a long while said ‘Sanskritic,’ but later he -adopted ‘Indo-Germanic,’ and this has been the generally recognized -name used in Germany, in spite of Bopp’s protest who said that -‘Indo-klassisch’ would be more to the point; ‘Indo-Keltic’ has also -been proposed as designating the family through its two extreme members -to the East and West. But all these compound names are clumsy without -being completely pertinent, and it seems therefore much better to use -the short and convenient term ‘the Aryan languages’: Aryan being the -oldest name by which any members of the family designated themselves -(in India and Persia).[10] - -Thanks to the labours of Bopp and Grimm and their co-workers and -followers, we see also a change in the status of the study of -languages. Formerly this was chiefly a handmaiden to philology--but -as this word is often in English used in a sense unknown to -other languages and really objectionable, namely as a synonym of -(comparative) study of languages, it will be necessary first to say a -few words about the terminology of our science. In this book I shall -use the word ‘philology’ in its continental sense, which is often -rendered in English by the vague word ‘scholarship,’ meaning thereby -the study of the specific culture of one nation; thus we speak of -Latin philology, Greek philology, Icelandic philology, etc. The word -‘linguist,’ on the other hand, is not infrequently used in the sense of -one who has merely a practical knowledge of some foreign language; but -I think I am in accordance with a growing number of scholars in England -and America if I call such a man a ‘practical linguist’ and apply the -word ‘linguist’ by itself to the scientific student of language (or of -languages); ‘linguistics’ then becomes a shorter and more convenient -name for what is also called the science of language (or of languages). - -Now that the reader understands the sense in which I take these two -terms, I may go on to say that the beginning of the nineteenth century -witnessed a growing differentiation between philology and linguistics -in consequence of the new method introduced by comparative and by -historical grammar; it was nothing less than a completely new way of -looking at the facts of language and trying to trace their origin. -While to the philologist the Greek or Latin language, etc., was only -a means to an end, to the linguist it was an end in itself. The -former saw in it a valuable, and in fact an indispensable, means of -gaining a first-hand knowledge of the literature which was his chief -concern, but the linguist cared not for the literature as such, but -studied languages for their own sake, and might even turn to languages -destitute of literature because they were able to throw some light on -the life of language in general or on forms in related languages. The -philologist as such would not think of studying the Gothic of Wulfila, -as a knowledge of that language gives access only to a translation -of parts of the Bible, the ideas of which can be studied much better -elsewhere; but to the linguist Gothic was extremely valuable. The -differentiation, of course, is not an absolute one; besides being -linguists in the new sense, Rask was an Icelandic philologist, Bopp a -Sanskrit philologist, and Grimm a German philologist; but the tendency -towards the emancipation of linguistics was very strong in them, and -some of their pupils were pure linguists and did no work in philology. - -In breaking away from philology and claiming for linguistics the rank -of a new and independent science, the partisans of the new doctrine -were apt to think that not only had they discovered a new method, -but that the object of their study was different from that of the -philologists, even when they were both concerned with language. While -the philologist looked upon language as part of the culture of some -nation, the linguist looked upon it as a natural object; and when in -the beginning of the nineteenth century philosophers began to divide -all sciences into the two sharply separated classes of mental and -natural sciences (geistes- und naturwissenschaften), linguists would -often reckon their science among the latter. There was in this a -certain amount of pride or boastfulness, for on account of the rapid -rise and splendid achievements of the natural sciences at that time, -it began to be a matter of common belief that they were superior -to, and were possessed of a more scientific method than, the other -class--the same view that finds an expression in the ordinary English -usage, according to which ‘science’ means natural science and the other -domains of human knowledge are termed the ‘arts’ or the ‘humanities.’ - -We see the new point of view in occasional utterances of the pioneers -of linguistic science. Rask expressly says that “Language is a natural -object and its study resembles natural history” (SA 2. 502); but when -he repeats the same sentence (in _Retskrivningslære_, 8) it appears -that he is thinking of language as opposed to the more artificial -writing, and the contrast is not between mental and natural science, -but between art and nature, between what can and what cannot be -consciously modified by man--it is really a different question. - -Bopp, in his review of Grimm (1827, reprinted _Vocalismus_, 1836, p. -1), says: “Languages are to be considered organic natural bodies, -which are formed according to fixed laws, develop as possessing an -inner principle of life, and gradually die out because they do not -understand themselves any longer [!], and therefore cast off or -mutilate their members or forms, which were at first significant, -but gradually have become more of an extrinsic mass.... It is not -possible to determine how long languages may preserve their full vigour -of life and of procreation,” etc. This is highly figurative language -which should not be taken at its face value; but expressions like -these, and the constant use of such words as ‘organic’ and ‘inorganic’ -in speaking of formations in languages, and ‘organism’ of the whole -language, would tend to widen the gulf between the philological and the -linguistic point of view. Bopp himself never consistently followed the -naturalistic way of looking at language, but in § 4 of this chapter -we shall see that Schleicher was not afraid of going to extremes and -building up a consistent natural science of language. - -The cleavage between philology and linguistics did not take place -without arousing warm feeling. Classical scholars disliked the -intrusion of Sanskrit everywhere; they did not know that language and -did not see the use of it. They resented the way in which the new -science wanted to reconstruct Latin and Greek grammar and to substitute -new explanations for those which had always been accepted. Those -Sanskritists chatted of guna and vrddhi and other barbaric terms, and -even ventured to talk of a locative case in Latin, as if the number of -cases had not been settled once for all long ago![11] - -Classicists were no doubt perfectly right when they reproached -comparativists for their neglect of syntax, which to them was the most -important part of grammar; they were also in some measure right when -they maintained that linguists to a great extent contented themselves -with a superficial knowledge of the languages compared, which they -studied more in grammars and glossaries than in living texts, and -sometimes they would even exult when they found proof of this in -solecisms in Bopp’s Latin translations from Sanskrit, and even on the -title-page of _Glossarium Sanscritum a Franzisco Bopp_. Classical -scholars also looked askance at the growing interest in the changes -of sounds, or, as it was then usual to say, of letters. But when they -were apt here to quote the scriptural phrase about the letter that -killeth, while the spirit giveth life, they overlooked the fact that -Nature has rendered it impossible for anyone to penetrate to the mind -of anyone else except through its outer manifestations, and that it -is consequently impossible to get at the spirit of a language except -through its sounds: phonology must therefore form the necessary basis -and prerequisite of the scientific study of any group of languages. -Still, it cannot be denied that sometimes comparative phonology was -treated in such a mechanical way as partly to dehumanize the study of -language. - -When we look back at this period in the history of linguistics, -there are certain tendencies and characteristics that cannot fail to -catch our attention. First we must mention the prominence given to -Sanskrit, which was thought to be the unavoidable requirement of every -comparative linguist. In explaining anything in any of the cognate -languages the etymologist always turned first to Sanskrit words and -Sanskrit forms. This standpoint is found even much later, for instance -in Max Müller’s _Inaugural Address_ (1868, Ch. 19): “Sanskrit certainly -forms the only sound foundation of Comparative Philology, and it -will always remain the only safe guide through all its intricacies. -A comparative philologist without a knowledge of Sanskrit is like an -astronomer without a knowledge of mathematics.” A linguist of a later -generation may be excused for agreeing rather with Ellis, who says -(_Transact. Philol. Soc._, 1873-4, 21): “Almost in our own days came -the discovery of Sanskrit, and philology proper began--but, alas! at -the wrong end. Now, here I run great danger of being misunderstood. -Although for a scientific sifting of the nature of language I presume -to think that beginning at Sanskrit was unfortunate, yet I freely admit -that, had that language not been brought into Europe ... our knowledge -of language would have been in a poor condition indeed.... We are under -the greatest obligations to those distinguished men who have undertaken -to unravel its secrets and to show its connexion with the languages of -Europe. Yet I must repeat that for the pure science of language, to -begin with Sanskrit was as much beginning at the wrong end as it would -have been to commence zoology with palæontology--the relations of life -with the bones of the dead.” - -Next, Bopp and his nearest successors were chiefly occupied with -finding likenesses between the languages treated and discovering things -that united them. This was quite natural in the first stage of the -new science, but sometimes led to one-sidedness, the characteristic -individuality of each language being lost sight of, while forms from -many countries and many times were mixed up in a hotch-potch. Rask, on -account of his whole mental equipment, was less liable to this danger -than most of his contemporaries; but Pott was evidently right when he -warned his fellow-students that their comparative linguistics should be -supplemented by separative linguistics (_Zählmethode_, 229), as it has -been to a great extent in recent years. - -Still another feature of the linguistic science of those days is the -almost exclusive occupation of the student with dead languages. It -was quite natural that the earliest comparativists should first give -their attention to the oldest stages of the languages compared, since -these alone enabled them to prove the essential kinship between the -different members of the great Aryan family. In Grimm’s grammar nearly -all the space is taken up with Gothic, Old High German, Old Norse, -etc., and comparatively little is said about recent developments of the -same languages. In Bopp’s comparative grammar classical Greek and Latin -are, of course, treated carefully, but Modern Greek and the Romanic -languages are not mentioned (thus also in Schleicher’s _Compendium_ -and in Brugmann’s _Grammar_), such later developments being left to -specialists who were more or less considered to be outside the sphere -of Comparative Linguistics and even of the science of language in -general, though it would have been a much more correct view to include -them in both, and though much more could really be learnt of the life -of language from these studies than from comparisons made in the spirit -of Bopp. - -The earlier stages of different languages, which were compared by -linguists, were, of course, accessible only through the medium of -writing; we have seen that the early linguists spoke constantly of -letters and not of sounds. But this vitiated their whole outlook on -languages. These were scarcely ever studied at first-hand, and neither -in Bopp nor in Grimm nor in Pott or Benfey do we find such first-hand -observations of living spoken languages as play a great rôle in the -writings of Rask and impart an atmosphere of soundness to his whole -manner of looking at languages. If languages were called natural -objects, they were not yet studied as such or by truly naturalistic -methods. - -When living dialects were studied, the interest constantly centred -round the archaic traits in them; every survival of an old form, -every trace of old sounds that had been dropped in the standard -speech, was greeted with enthusiasm, and the significance of these old -characteristics greatly exaggerated, the general impression being that -popular dialects were always much more conservative than the speech of -educated people. It was reserved for a much later time to prove that -this view is completely erroneous, and that popular dialects, in spite -of many archaic details, are on the whole further developed than the -various standard languages with their stronger tradition and literary -reminiscences. - - -III.--§ 2. K. M. Rapp. - -It was from this archæological point of view only that Grimm -encouraged the study of dialects, but he expressly advised students -not to carry the research too far in the direction of discriminating -minutiæ of sounds, because these had little bearing on the history -of language as he understood it. In this connexion we may mention -an episode in the history of early linguistics that is symptomatic. -K. M. Rapp brought out his _Versuch einer Physiologie der Sprache -nebst historischer Entwickelung der abendländischen Idiome nach -physiologischen Grundsätzen_ in four volumes (1836, 1839, 1840, -1841). A physiological examination into the nature and classification -of speech sounds was to serve only as the basis of the historical -part, the grandiose plan of which was to find out how Greek, Latin -and Gothic sounded, and then to pursue the destinies of these sound -systems through the Middle Ages (Byzantine Greek, Old Provençal, Old -French, Old Norse, Anglo-Saxon, Old High German) to the present time -(Modern Greek, Italian, Spanish, etc., down to Low and High German, -with different dialects). To carry out this plan Rapp was equipped -with no small knowledge of the earlier stages of these languages -and a not contemptible first-hand observation of living languages. -He relates how from his childhood he had a “morbidly sharpened ear -for all acoustic impressions”; he had early observed the difference -between dialectal and educated speech and taken an interest in foreign -languages, such as French, Italian and English. He visited Denmark, and -there made the acquaintance of and became the pupil of Rask; he often -speaks of him and his works in terms of the greatest admiration. After -his return he took up the study of Jacob Grimm; but though he speaks -always very warmly about the other parts of Grimm’s work, Grimm’s -phonology disappointed him. “Grimm’s theory of letters I devoured with -a ravenous appetite for all the new things I had to learn from it, -but also with heartburning on account of the equally numerous things -that warred against the whole of my previous research with regard to -the nature of speech sounds; fascinated though I was by what I read, -it thus made me incredibly miserable.” He set to his great task with -enthusiasm, led by the conviction that “the historical material gives -here only one side of the truth, and that the living language in all -its branches that have never been committed to writing forms the other -and equally important side which is still far from being satisfactorily -investigated.” It is easy to understand that Rapp came into conflict -with Grimm’s _Buchstabenlehre_, that had been based exclusively on -written forms, and Rapp was not afraid of expressing his unorthodox -views in what he himself terms “a violent and arrogating tone.” No -wonder, therefore, that his book fell into disgrace with the leaders -of linguistics in Germany, who noticed its errors and mistakes, which -were indeed numerous and conspicuous, rather than the new and sane -ideas it contained. Rapp’s work is extraordinarily little known; in -Raumer’s _Geschichte der germanischen Philologie_ and similar works -it is not even mentioned, and when I disinterred it from undeserved -oblivion in my _Fonetik_ (1897, p. 35; cf. _Die neueren Sprachen_, vol. -xiii, 1904) it was utterly unknown to the German phoneticians of my -acquaintance. Yet not only are its phonetic observations[12] deserving -of praise, but still more its whole plan, based as it is on a thorough -comprehension of the mutual relations of sounds and writing, which -led Rapp to use phonetic transcription throughout, even in connected -specimens both of living and dead languages; that this is really the -only way in which it is possible to obtain a comprehensive and living -understanding of the sound-system of any language (as well as to get a -clear perception of the extent of one’s own ignorance of it!) has not -yet been generally recognized. The science of language would have made -swifter and steadier progress if Grimm and his successors had been able -to assimilate the main thoughts of Rapp. - - -III.--§ 3. J. H. Bredsdorff. - -Another (and still earlier) work that was overlooked at the time -was the little pamphlet _Om Aarsagerne til Sprogenes Forandringer_ -(1821) by the Dane J. H. Bredsdorff. Bopp and Grimm never really asked -themselves the fundamental question, How is it that language changes: -what are the driving forces that lead in course of time to such -far-reaching differences as those we find between Sanskrit and Latin, -or between Latin and French? Now, this is exactly the question that -Bredsdorff treats in his masterly pamphlet. Like Rapp, he was a very -good phonetician; but in the pamphlet that concerns us here he speaks -not only of phonetic but of other linguistic changes as well. These he -refers to the following causes, which he illustrates with well-chosen -examples: (1) Mishearing and misunderstanding; (2) misrecollection; (3) -imperfection of organs; (4) indolence: to this he inclines to refer -nine-tenths of all those changes in the pronunciation of a language -that are not due to foreign influences; (5) tendency towards analogy: -here he gives instances from the speech of children and explains by -analogy such phenomena as the extension of _s_ to all genitives, etc.; -(6) the desire to be distinct; (7) the need of expressing new ideas. -He recognizes that there are changes that cannot be brought under any -of these explanations, e.g. the Gothonic sound shift (cf. above, p. -43 note), and he emphasizes the many ways in which foreign nations or -foreign languages may influence a language. Bredsdorff’s explanations -may not always be correct; but what constitutes the deep originality -of his little book is the way in which linguistic changes are always -regarded in terms of human activity, chiefly of a psychological -character. Here he was head and shoulders above his contemporaries; in -fact, most of Bredsdorff’s ideas, such as the power of analogy, were -the same that sixty years later had to fight so hard to be recognized -by the leading linguists of that time.[13] - - -III.--§ 4. August Schleicher. - -In Rapp, and even more in Bredsdorff, we get a whiff of the scientific -atmosphere of a much later time; but most of the linguists of the -twenties and following decades (among whom A. F. Pott deserves to be -specially named) moved in essentially the same grooves as Bopp and -Grimm, and it will not be necessary here to deal in detail with their -work. - -August Schleicher (1821-68) in many ways marks the culmination of the -first period of Comparative Linguistics, as well as the transition to -a new period with different aims and, partially at any rate, a new -method. His intimate knowledge of many languages, his great power -of combination, his clear-cut and always lucid exposition--all this -made him a natural leader, and made his books for many years the -standard handbooks of linguistic science. Unlike Bopp and Grimm, he was -exclusively a linguist, or, as he called it himself, ‘glottiker,’ and -never tired of claiming for the science of linguistics (‘glottik’), -as opposed to philology, the rank of a separate natural science. -Schleicher specialized in Slavonic and Lithuanian; he studied the -latter language in its own home and took down a great many songs -and tales from the mouths of the peasants; he was for some years -a professor in the University of Prague, and there acquired a -conversational knowledge of Czech; he spoke Russian, too, and thus -in contradistinction to Bopp and Grimm had a first-hand knowledge -of more than one foreign language; his interest in living speech is -also manifested in his specimens of the dialect of his native town, -_Volkstümliches aus Sonneberg_. When he was a child his father very -severely insisted on the constant and correct use of the educated -language at home; but the boy, perhaps all the more on account of the -paternal prohibition, was deeply attracted to the popular dialect he -heard from his playfellows and to the fascinating folklore of the old -townspeople, which he was later to take down and put into print. In the -preface he says that the acquisition of foreign tongues is rendered -considerably easier through the habit of speaking two dialects from -childhood. - -What makes Schleicher particularly important for the purposes of this -volume is the fact that in a long series of publications he put forth -not only details of his science, but original and comprehensive views -on the fundamental questions of linguistic theory, and that these had -great influence on the linguistic philosophy of the following decades. -He was, perhaps, the most consistent as well as one of the clearest of -linguistic thinkers, and his views therefore deserve to be examined in -detail and with the greatest care. - -Apart from languages, Schleicher was deeply interested both in -philosophy and in natural science, especially botany. From these he -fetched many of the weapons of his armoury, and they coloured the whole -of his theory of language. In his student days at Tübingen he became -an enthusiastic adherent of the philosophy of Hegel, and not even the -Darwinian sympathies and views of which he became a champion towards -the end of his career made him abandon the doctrines of his youth. -As for science, he says that naturalists make us understand that in -science nothing is of value except facts established through strictly -objective observation and the conclusions based on such facts--this -is a lesson that he thinks many of his colleagues would do well to -take to heart. There can be no doubt that Schleicher in his practice -followed a much more rigorous and sober method than his predecessors, -and that his _Compendium_ in that respect stands far above Bopp’s -_Grammar_. In his general reasonings on the nature of language, on the -other hand, Schleicher did not always follow the strict principles of -sober criticism, being, as we shall now see, too dependent on Hegelian -philosophy, and also on certain dogmatic views that he had inherited -from previous German linguists, from Schlegel downwards. - -The Introductions to Schleicher’s two first volumes are entirely -Hegelian, though with a characteristic difference, for in the first -he says that the changes to be seen in the realm of languages are -decidedly historical and in no way resemble the changes that we may -observe in nature, for “however manifold these may be, they never -show anything but a circular course that repeats itself continually” -(Hegel), while in language, as in everything mental, we may see new -things that have never existed before. One generation of animals or -plants is like another; the skill of animals has no history, as human -art has; language is specifically human and mental: its development -is therefore analogous to history, for in both we see a continual -progress to new phases. In Schleicher’s second volume, however, this -view is expressly rejected in its main part, because Schleicher now -wants to emphasize the natural character of language: it is true, he -now says, that language shows a ‘werden’ which may be termed history -in the wider sense of this word, but which is found in its purest form -in nature; for instance, in the growing of a plant. Language belongs -to the natural sphere, not to the sphere of free mental activity, and -this must be our starting-point if we would discover the method of -linguistic science (ii. 21). - -It would, of course, be possible to say that the method of linguistic -science is that of natural science, and yet to maintain that the -object of linguistics is different from that of natural science, but -Schleicher more and more tends to identify the two, and when he was -attacked for saying, in his pamphlet on the Darwinian theory, that -languages were material things, real natural objects, he wrote in -defence _Ueber die bedeutung der sprache für die naturgeschichte des -menschen_, which is highly characteristic as the culminating point of -the materialistic way of looking at languages. The activity, he says, -of any organ, e.g. one of the organs of digestion, or the brain or -muscles, is dependent on the constitution of that organ. The different -ways in which different species, nay even different individuals, walk -are evidently conditioned by the structure of the limbs; the activity -or function of the organ is, as it were, nothing but an aspect of the -organ itself, even if it is not always possible by means of the knife -or microscope of the scientist to demonstrate the material cause of the -phenomenon. What is true of the manner of walking is true of language -as well; for language is nothing but the result, perceptible through -the ear, of the action of a complex of material substances in the -structure of the brain and of the organs of speech, with their nerves, -bones, muscles, etc. Anatomists, however, have not yet been able to -demonstrate differences in the structures of these organs corresponding -to differences of nationality--to discriminate, that is, the organs of -a Frenchman (_quâ_ Frenchman) from those of a German (_quâ_ German). -Accordingly, as the chemist can only arrive at the elements which -compose the sun by examining the light which it emits, while the source -of that light remains inaccessible to him, so must we be content to -study the nature of languages, not in their material antecedents -but in their audible manifestations. It makes no great difference, -however, for “the two things stand to each other as cause and effect, -as substance and phenomenon: a philosopher [i.e. a Hegelian] would say -that they are identical.” - -Now I, for one, fail to understand how this can be what Schleicher -believes it to be, “a refutation of the objection that language is -nothing but a consequence of the activity of these organs.” The -sun exists independently of the human observer; but there could be -no such thing as language if there was not besides the speaker a -listener who might become a speaker in his turn. Schleicher speaks -continually in his pamphlet as if structural differences in the brain -and organs of speech were the real language, and as if it were only -for want of an adequate method of examining this hidden structure that -we had to content ourselves with studying language in its outward -manifestation as audible speech. But this is certainly on the face of -it preposterous, and scarcely needs any serious refutation. If the -proof of the pudding is in the eating, the proof of a language must be -in the hearing and understanding; but in order to be heard words must -first be spoken, and in these two activities (that of producing and -that of perceiving sounds) the real essence of language must consist, -and these two activities are the primary (or why not the exclusive?) -object of the science of language. - -Schleicher goes on to meet another objection that may be made to his -view of the ‘substantiality of language,’ namely, that drawn from the -power of learning other languages. Schleicher doubts the possibility -of learning another language to perfection; he would admit this only -in the case of a man who exchanged his mother-tongue for another in -his earliest youth; “but then he becomes by that very fact a different -being from what he was: brain and organs of speech develop in another -direction.” If Mr. So-and-So is said to speak and write German, English -and French equally well, Schleicher first inclines to doubt the fact; -and then, granting that the same individual may “be at the same time -a German, a Frenchman and an Englishman,” he asks us to remember that -all these three languages belong to the same family and may, from a -broader point of view, be termed species of the same language; but he -denies the possibility of anyone’s being equally at home in Chinese and -German, or in Arabic and Hottentot, etc., because these languages are -totally different in their innermost essence. (But what of bilingual -children in Finland, speaking Swedish and Finnish, or in Greenland, -speaking Danish and Eskimo, or in Java, speaking Dutch and Malay?) -Schleicher has to admit that our organs are to some extent flexible and -capable of acquiring activities that they had not at first; but one -definite function is and remains nevertheless the only natural one, -and thus “the possibility of a man’s acquiring foreign languages more -or less perfectly is no objection to our seeing the material basis of -language in the structure of the brain and organs of speech.” - -Even if we admit that Schleicher is so far right that in nearly all (or -all?) cases of bilingualism one language comes more naturally than -the other, he certainly exaggerates the difference, which is always -one of degree; and at any rate his final conclusion is wrong, for we -might with the same amount of justice say that a man who has first -learned to play the piano has acquired the structure of brain and -fingers peculiar to a pianist, and that it is then unnatural for him -also to learn to play the violin, because that would imply a different -structure of these organs. In all these cases we have to do with a -definite proficiency or skill, which can only be obtained by constant -practice, though of course one man may be better predisposed by nature -for it than another; but then it is also the fact that people who speak -no foreign language attain to very different degrees of proficiency -in the use of their mother-tongue. It cannot be said too emphatically -that we have here a fundamental question, and that Schleicher’s view -can never lead to a true conception of what language is, or to a real -insight into its changes and historical development. - -Schleicher goes on to say that the classification of mankind into -races should not be based on the formation of the skull or on the -character of the hair, or any such external criteria, as they are by no -means constant, but rather on language, because this is a thoroughly -constant criterion. This alone would give a perfectly natural system, -one, for instance, in which all Turks would be classed together, while -otherwise the Osmanli Turk belongs to the ‘Caucasian’ race and the -so-called Tataric Turks to the ‘Mongolian’ race; on the other hand, -the Magyar and the Basque are not physically to be distinguished from -the Indo-European, though their languages are widely dissimilar. -According to Schleicher, therefore, the natural system of languages -is also the natural system of mankind, for language is closely -connected with the whole higher life of men, which is therefore taken -into consideration in and with their language. In this book I am not -concerned with the ethnographical division of mankind into races, and -I therefore must content myself with saying that the very examples -adduced by Schleicher seem to me to militate against his theory that -a division of mankind based on language is the natural one: are we to -reckon the Basque’s son, who speaks nothing but French (or Spanish) as -belonging to a different race from his father? And does not Schleicher -contradict himself when on p. 16 he writes that language is “ein völlig -constantes merkmal,” and p. 20 that it is “in fortwährender veränderung -begriffen”? So far as I see, Schleicher never expressly says that he -thinks that the physical structure conditioning the structure of a -man’s language is hereditary, though some of his expressions point -that way, and that may be what he means by the expression ‘constant.’ -In other places (Darw. 25, Bed. 24) he allows external conditions of -life to exercise some influence on the character of a language, as when -languages of neighbouring peoples are similar (Aryans and Semites, for -example, are the only nations possessing flexional languages). On such -points, however, he gives only a few hints and suggestions. - - -III.--§ 5. Classification of Languages. - -In the question of the classification of languages Schleicher -introduces a deductive element from his strong preoccupation with -Hegelian ideas. Hegel everywhere moves in trilogies; Schleicher -therefore must have three classes, and consequently has to tack -together two of Pott’s four classes (agglutinating and incorporating); -then he is able philosophically to deduce the tripartition. For -language consists in _meaning_ (bedeutung; matter, contents, root) and -_relation_ (beziehung; form), tertium non datur. As it would be a sheer -impossibility for a language to express form only, we obtain three -classes: - -I. Here meaning is the only thing indicated by sound; relation is -merely suggested by word-position: isolating languages. - -II. Both meaning and relation are expressed by sound, but the formal -elements are visibly tacked on to the root, which is itself invariable: -agglutinating languages. - -III. The elements of meaning and of relation are fused together or -absorbed into a higher unity, the root being susceptible of inward -modification as well as of affixes to denote form: flexional languages. - -Schleicher employs quasi-mathematical formulas to illustrate these -three classes: if we denote a root by _R_, a prefix by _p_ and a suffix -by _s_, and finally use a raised _x_ to denote an inner modification, -we see that in the isolated languages we have nothing but _R_ (a -sentence may be represented by _R R R R ..._), a word in the second -class has the formula _R s_ or _p R_ or _p R s_, but in the third class -we may have _p R^x s_ (or _R^x s_). - -Now, according to Schleicher the three classes of languages are -not only found simultaneously in the tongues of our own day, but -they represent three stages of linguistic development; “to the -_nebeneinander_ of the system corresponds the _nacheinander_ of -history.” Beyond the flexional stage no language can attain; -the symbolic denotation of relation by flexion is the highest -accomplishment of language; speech has here effectually realized its -object, which is to give a faithful phonetic image of thought. But -before a language can become flexional it must have passed through an -isolating and an agglutinating period. Is this theory borne out by -historical facts? Can we trace back any of the existing flexional -languages to agglutination and isolation? Schleicher himself answers -this question in the negative: the earliest Latin was of as good -a flexional type as are the modern Romanic languages. This would -seem a sort of contradiction in terms; but the orthodox Hegelian is -ready with an answer to any objection; he has the word of his master -that History cannot begin till the human spirit becomes “conscious -of its own freedom,” and this consciousness is only possible after -the complete development of language. The formation of Language -and History are accordingly successive stages of human activity. -Moreover, as history and historiography, i.e. literature, come into -existence simultaneously, Schleicher is enabled to express the same -idea in a way that “is only seemingly paradoxical,” namely, that -the development of language is brought to a conclusion as soon as -literature makes its appearance; this is a crisis after which language -remains fixed; language has now become a means, instead of being the -aim, of intellectual activity. We never meet with any language that -is developing or that has become more perfect; in historical times -all languages move only downhill; linguistic history means decay of -languages as such, subjugated as they are through the gradual evolution -of the mind to greater freedom. - -The reader of the above survey of previous classifications will easily -see that in the matter itself Schleicher adds very little of his own. -Even the expressions, which are here given throughout in Schleicher’s -own words, are in some cases recognizable as identical with, or closely -similar to, those of earlier scholars. - -He made one coherent system out of ideas of classification and -development already found in others. What is new is the philosophical -substructure of Hegelian origin, and there can be no doubt that -Schleicher imagined that by this addition he contributed very much -towards giving stability and durability to the whole system. And yet -this proved to be the least stable and durable part of the structure, -and as a matter of fact the Hegelian reasoning is not repeated by a -single one of those who give their adherence to the classification. Nor -can it be said to carry conviction, and undoubtedly it has seemed to -most linguists at the same time too rigid and too unreal to have any -importance. - -But apart from the philosophical argument the classification proved -very successful in the particular shape it had found in Schleicher. -Its adoption into two such widely read works as Max Müller’s and -Whitney’s Lectures on the Science of Language contributed very much -to the popularity of the system, though the former’s attempt at -ascribing to the tripartition a sociological importance by saying that -juxtaposition (isolation) is characteristic of the ‘family stage,’ -agglutination of ‘the nomadic stage’ and amalgamation (flexion) of -the ‘political stage’ of human society was hardly taken seriously by -anybody. - -The chief reasons for the popularity of this classification are not far -to seek. It is easy of handling and appeals to the natural fondness -for clear-cut formulas through its specious appearance of regularity -and rationality. Besides, it flatters widespread prejudices in so -far as it places the two groups of languages highest that are spoken -by those nations which have culturally and religiously exercised the -deepest influence on the civilization of the world, Aryans and Semites. -Therefore also Pott’s view, according to which the incorporating or -‘polysynthetic’ American languages possess the same characteristics -that distinguish flexion as against agglutination, only in a still -higher degree, is generally tacitly discarded, for obviously it -would not do to place some languages of American Indians higher than -Sanskrit or Greek. But when these are looked upon as the very flower -of linguistic development it is quite natural to regard the modern -languages of Western Europe as degenerate corruptions of the ancient -more highly flexional languages; this is in perfect keeping with the -prevalent admiration for classical antiquity and with the belief in -a far past golden age. Arguments such as these may not have been -consciously in the minds of the framers of the ordinary classification, -but there can be no doubt that they have been unconsciously working in -favour of the system, though very little thought seems to be required -to show the fallacy of the assumption that high civilization has any -intrinsic and necessary connexion with the _grammatical_ construction -of the language spoken by the race or nation concerned. No language -of modern Europe presents the flexional type in a purer shape than -Lithuanian, where we find preserved nearly the same grammatical system -as in old Sanskrit, yet no one would assert that the culture of -Lithuanian peasants is higher than that of Shakespeare, whose language -has lost an enormous amount of the old flexions. Culture and language -must be appraised separately, each on its own merits and independently -of the other. - -From a purely linguistic point of view there are many objections to the -usual classification, and it will be well here to bring them together, -though this will mean an interruption of the historical survey which is -the main object of these chapters. - -First let us look upon the tripartition as purporting a comprehensive -classification of languages as existing side by side without any -regard to historic development (the _nebeneinander_ of Schleicher). -Here it does not seem to be an ideal manner of classifying a great -many objects to establish three classes of such different dimensions -that the first comprises only Chinese and some other related languages -of the Far East, and the third only two families of languages, while -the second includes hundreds of unrelated languages of the most -heterogeneous character. It seems certain that the languages of Class -I represent one definite type of linguistic structure, and it may be -that Aryan and Semitic should be classed together on account of the -similarity of their structure, though this is by no means quite certain -and has been denied (by Bopp, and in recent times by Porzezinski); -but what is indubitable is that the ‘agglutinating’ class is made to -comprehend languages of the most diverse type, even if we follow Pott -and exclude from this class all incorporating languages. Finnish is -always mentioned as a typically agglutinative language, yet there -we meet with such declensional forms as nominative _vesi_ ‘water,’ -_toinen_ ‘second,’ partitive _vettä_, _toista_, genitive _veden_, -_toisen_, and such verbal forms as _sido-n_ ‘I bind,’ _sido-t_ ‘thou -bindest,’ _sito-o_ ‘he binds,’ and the three corresponding persons in -the plural, _sido-mme_, _sido-tte_, _sito-vat_. Here we are far from -having one unchangeable root to which endings have been glued, for the -root itself undergoes changes before the endings. In Kiyombe (Congo) -the perfect of verbs is in many cases formed by means of a vowel -change that is a complete parallel to the apophony in English _drink_, -_drank_, thus _vanga_ ‘do,’ perfect _venge_, _twala_ ‘bring,’ perfect -_twele_ or _twede_, etc. (_Anthropos_, ii. p. 761). Examples like these -show that flexion, in whatever way we may define this term, is not -the prerogative of the Aryans and Semites, but may be found in other -nations as well. ‘Agglutination’ is either too vague a term to be used -in classification, or else, if it is taken strictly according to the -usual definition, it is too definite to comprise many of the languages -which are ordinarily reckoned to belong to the second class. - -It will be seen, also, that those writers who aim at giving -descriptions of a variety of human tongues, or of them all, do -not content themselves with the usual three classes, but have a -greater number. This began with Steinthal, who in various works -tried to classify languages partly from geographical, partly from -structural points of view, without, however, arriving at any definite -or consistent system. Friedrich Müller, in his great _Grundriss -der Sprachwissenschaft_, really gives up the psychological or -structural division of languages, distributing the more than hundred -different languages that he describes among twelve races of mankind, -characterized chiefly by external criteria that have nothing to do with -language. Misteli establishes six main types: I. Incorporating. II. -Root-isolating. III. Stem-isolating. IV. Affixing (Anreihende). V. -Agglutinating. VI. Flexional. These he also distributes so as to form -four classes: (1) languages with sentence-words: I; (2) languages with -no words: II, III and IV; (3) languages with apparent words: V; and -(4) languages with real words: VI. But the latter division had better -be left alone; it turns on the intricate question “What constitutes a -word?” and ultimately depends on the usual depreciation of ‘inferior -races’ and corresponding exaltation of our own race, which is alone -reputed capable of possessing ‘real words.’ I do not see why we should -not recognize that the vocables of Greenlandic, Malay, Kafir or Finnish -are just as ‘real’ words as any in Hebrew or Latin. - -Our final result, then, is that the tripartition is insufficient and -inadequate to serve as a comprehensive classification of languages -actually existing. Nor shall we wonder at this if we see the way in -which the theory began historically in an _obiter dictum_ of Fr. v. -Schlegel at a time when the inner structure of only a few languages had -been properly studied, and if we consider the lack of clearness and -definiteness inherent in such notions as agglutination and flexion, -which are nevertheless made the corner-stones of the whole system. We -therefore must go back to the wise saying of Humboldt quoted on p. 59, -that the structural diversities of languages are too great for us to -classify them comprehensively. - -In a subsequent part of this work I shall deal with the tripartition -as representing three successive stages in the development of such -languages as our own (the _nacheinander_ of Schleicher), and try to -show that Schleicher’s view is not borne out by the facts of linguistic -history, which give us a totally different picture of development. - -From both points of view, then, I think that the classification here -considered deserves to be shelved among the hasty generalizations in -which the history of every branch of science is unfortunately so rich. - - -III.--§ 6. Reconstruction. - -Probably Schleicher’s most original and important contribution to -linguistics was his reconstruction of the Proto-Aryan language, -_die indogermanische ursprache_. The possibility of inferentially -constructing this parent language, which to Sanskrit, Greek, Latin, -Gothic, etc., was what Latin was to Italian, Spanish, French, etc., -was early in his thoughts (see quotations illustrating the gradual -growth of the idea in Oertel, p. 39 f.), but it was not till the -first edition of his _Compendium_ that he carried it out in detail, -giving there for each separate chapter (vowels, consonants, roots, -stem-formation, declension, conjugation) first the Proto-Aryan forms -and then those actually found in the different languages, from which -the former were inferred. This arrangement has the advantage that the -reader everywhere sees the historical evolution in the natural order, -beginning with the oldest and then proceeding to the later stages, just -as the Romanic scholar begins with Latin and then takes in successive -stages Old French, Modern French, etc. But in the case of Proto-Aryan -this procedure is apt to deceive the student and make him take these -primitive forms as something certain, whose existence reposes on -just as good evidence as the forms found in Sanskrit literature or -in German or English as spoken in our own days. When he finds some -forms given first and used to _explain_ some others, there is some -danger of his forgetting that the forms given first have a quite -different status to the others, and that their only _raison d’être_ is -the desire of a modern linguist to explain existing forms in related -languages which present certain similarities as originating from a -common original form, which he does not find in his texts and has, -therefore, to reconstruct. But apart from this there can be no doubt -that the reconstruction of older forms (and the ingenious device, due -to Schleicher, of denoting such forms by means of a preposed asterisk -to distinguish them from forms actually found) has been in many ways -beneficial to historical grammar. Only it may be questioned whether -Schleicher did not go too far when he wished to base the whole grammar -of all the Aryan languages on such reconstructions, instead of using -them now and then to explain single facts. - -Schleicher even ventured (and in this he seems to have had no follower) -to construct an entire little fable in primitive Aryan: see “Eine fabel -in indogermanischer ursprache,” _Beiträge zur vergl. sprachforschung_, -5. 206 (1868). In the introductory remarks he complains of the -difficulty of such attempts, chiefly because of the almost complete -lack of particles capable of being inferred from the existing -languages, but he seems to have entertained no doubt about the phonetic -and grammatical forms of the words he employed. As the fable is not -now commonly known, I give it here, with Schleicher’s translation, as -a document of this period of comparative linguistics. - - AVIS AKVASAS KA - - Avis, jasmin varna na ā ast, dadarka akvams, tam, vāgham garum - vaghantam, tam, bhāram magham, tam, manum āku bharantam. Avis - akvabhjams ā vavakat: kard aghnutai mai vidanti manum akvams agantam. - - Akvāsas ā vavakant: krudhi avai, kard aghnutai vividvantsvas: manus - patis varnām avisāms karnanti svabhjam gharmam vastram avibhjams ka - varnā na asti. - - Tat kukruvants avis agram ā bhugat. - - - [DAS] SCHAF UND [DIE] ROSSE - - [Ein] schaf, [auf] welchem wolle nicht war (ein geschorenes schaf) - sah rosse, das [einen] schweren wagen fahrend, das [eine] grosse - last, das [einen] menschen schnell tragend. [Das] schaf sprach [zu - den] rossen: [Das] herz wird beengt [in] mir (es thut mir herzlich - leid), sehend [den] menschen [die] rosse treibend. - - [Die] rosse sprachen: Höre schaf, [das] herz wird beengt [in den] - gesehend-habenden (es thut uns herzlich leid, da wir wissen): [der] - mensch, [der] herr macht [die] wolle [der] schafe [zu einem] warmen - kleide [für] sich und [den] schafen ist nicht wolle (die schafe aber - haben keine wolle mehr, sie werden geschoren; es geht ihnen noch - schlechter als den rossen). - - Dies gehört habend bog (entwich) [das] schaf [auf das] feld (es - machte sich aus dem staube). - -The question here naturally arises: Is it possible in the way initiated -by Schleicher to reconstruct extinct linguistic stages, and what degree -of probability can be attached to the forms thus created by linguists? -The answer certainly must be that in some instances the reconstruction -may have a very strong degree of probability, namely, if the data on -which it is based are unambiguous and the form to be reconstructed is -not far removed from that or those actually found; but that otherwise -any reconstruction becomes doubtful, and naturally the more so -according to the extent of the reconstruction (as when a whole text -is constructed) and to the distance in time that intervenes between -the known and the unknown stage. If we look at the genitives of Lat. -_genus_ and Gr. _génos_, which are found as _generis_ and _génous_, -it is easy to see that both presuppose a form with _s_ between two -vowels, as we see a great many intervocalic _s_’s becoming _r_ in -Latin and disappearing in Greek; but when Schleicher gives as the -prototype of both (and of corresponding forms in the other languages) -Aryan _ganasas_, he oversteps the limits of the permissible in so far -as he ascribes to the vowels definite sounds not really warranted by -the known forms. If we knew the modern Scandinavian languages and -English only, we should not hesitate to give to the Proto-Gothonic -genitive of the word for ‘mother’ the ending _-s_, cf. Dan. _moders_, -E. _mother’s_; but G. _der mutter_ suffices to show that the conclusion -is not safe, and as a matter of fact, both in Old Norse and in Old -English the genitive of this word is without an _s_. An analogous case -is presented when Schleicher reconstructs the nom. of the word for -‘father’ as _patars_, because he presupposes _-s_ as the invariable -sign of every nom. sg. masc., although in this particular word not -a single one of the old languages has _-s_ in the nominative. All -Schleicher’s reconstructions are based on the assumption that Primitive -Aryan had a very simple structure, only few consonant and fewer vowel -sounds, and great regularity in morphology; but, as we shall see, -this assumption is completely gratuitous and was exploded only a few -years after his death. Gabelentz (Spr 182), therefore, was right when -he said, with a certain irony, that the Aryan _ursprache_ had changed -beyond recognition in the short time between Schleicher and Brugmann. -The moral to be drawn from all this seems to be that hypothetical and -starred forms should be used sparingly and with the extremest caution. - -With regard to inferential forms denoted by a star, the following -note may not be out of place here. Their purely theoretical character -is not always realized. An example will illustrate what I mean. If -etymological dictionaries give as the origin of F. _ménage_ (OF. -_maisnage_) a Latin form *_mansionaticum_, the etymology may be correct -although such a Latin word may never at any time have been uttered. The -word was framed at some date, no one knows exactly when, from the word -which at various times had the forms (acc.) _mansionem_, *_masione_, -_maison_, by means of the ending which at first had the form _-aticum_ -(as in _viaticum_), and finally (through several intermediate stages) -became _-age_; but at what stage of each the two elements met to make -the word which eventually became _ménage_, no one can tell, so that -the only thing really asserted is that _if_ the word had been formed -at a very early date (which is far from probable) it would have been -_mansionaticum_. It would, therefore, perhaps be more correct to say -that the word is from _mansione_ + _-aticum_. - - -III.--§ 7. Curtius, Madvig, and Specialists. - -Second only to Schleicher among the linguists of those days was Georg -Curtius (1820-85), at one time his colleague in the University of -Prague. Curtius’s special study was Greek, and his books on the Greek -verb and on Greek etymology cleared up a great many doubtful points; -he also contributed very much to bridge the gulf between classical -philology and Aryan linguistics. His views on general questions -were embodied in the book _Zur Chronologie der indogermanischen -Sprachforschung_ (1873). While Schleicher died when his fame was at its -highest and his theories were seemingly victorious in all the leading -circles, Curtius had the misfortune to see a generation of younger -men, including some of his own best disciples, such as Brugmann, -advance theories that seemed to him to be in conflict with the most -essential principles of his cherished science; and though he himself, -like Schleicher, had always been in favour of a stricter observance of -sound-laws than his predecessors, his last book was a polemic against -those younger scholars who carried the same point to the excess of -admitting no exceptions at all, who believed in innumerable analogical -formations even in the old languages, and whose reconstructions of -primitive forms appeared to the old man as deprived of that classical -beauty of the _ursprache_ which was represented in his own and -Schleicher’s works (_Zur Kritik der neuesten Sprachforschung_, 1885). -But this is anticipating. - -If Curtius was a comparativist with a sound knowledge of classical -philology, Johan Nikolai Madvig was pre-eminently a classical -philologist who took a great interest in general linguistics and -brought his critical acumen and sober common sense to bear on many of -the problems that exercised the minds of his contemporaries. He was -opposed to everything of a vague and mystical nature in the current -theories of language and disliked the tendency of some scholars to -find deep-lying mysterious powers at the root of linguistic phenomena. -But he probably went too far in his rationalism, for example, when he -entirely denied the existence of the sound-symbolism on which Humboldt -had expatiated. He laid much stress on the identity of the linguistic -faculty in all ages: the first speakers had no more intention than -people to-day of creating anything systematic or that would be good -for all times and all occasions--they could have no other object in -view than that of making themselves understood at the moment; hence -the want of system which we find everywhere in languages: a different -number of cases in singular and plural, different endings, etc. Madvig -did not escape some inconsistencies, as when he himself would explain -the use of the soft vowel _a_ to denote the feminine gender by a kind -of sound-symbolism, or when he thought it possible to determine in what -order the different grammatical ideas presented themselves to primitive -man (tense relation first in the verb, number before case in the noun). -He attached too little value to phonological and etymological research, -but on the whole his views were sounder than many which were set forth -on the same subjects at the time; his papers, however, were very little -known, partly because they were written in Danish, partly because his -style was extremely heavy and difficult, and when he finally brought -out his _Kleine philologische schriften_ in German (1875), he expressed -his regret in the preface at finding that many of the theories he -had put forward years before in Danish had in the meantime been -independently arrived at by Whitney, who had had the advantage of -expressing them in a world-language. - -One of the most important features of the period with which we are -here dealing is the development of a number of special branches of -historical linguistics on a comparative basis. Curtius’s work on -Greek might be cited as one example; in the same way there were -specialists in Sanskrit (Westergaard and Benfey among others), in -Slavonic (Miklosich and Schleicher), in Keltic (Zeuss), etc. Grimm -had numerous followers in the Gothonic or Germanic field, while in -Romanic philology there was an active and flourishing school, headed -by Friedrich Diez, whose _Grammatik der romanischen Sprachen_ and -_Etymologisches Wörterbuch der romanischen Sprachen_ were perhaps the -best introduction to the methodical study of linguistics that anyone -could desire; the writer of these lines looks back with the greatest -gratitude to that period of his youth when he had the good fortune to -make the acquaintance of these truly classical works. Everything was so -well arranged, so carefully thought out and so lucidly explained, that -one had everywhere the pleasant feeling that one was treading on firm -ground, the more so as the basis of the whole was not an artificially -constructed nebulous _ursprache_, but the familiar forms and words of -an historical language. Here one witnessed the gradual differentiation -of Latin into seven or eight distinct languages, whose development it -was possible to follow century by century in well-authenticated texts. -The picture thus displayed before one’s eyes of actual linguistic -growth in all domains--sounds, forms, word-formation, syntax--and (a -very important corollary) of the interdependence of these domains, -could not but leave a very strong impression--not merely enthusiasm for -what had been achieved here, but also a salutary skepticism of theories -in other fields which had not a similarly solid basis. - - -III.--§ 8. Max Müller and Whitney. - -Working, as we have seen, in many fields, linguists had now brought to -light a shoal of interesting facts affecting a great many languages -and had put forth valuable theories to explain these facts; but most -of their work remained difficult of access except to the specialist, -and very little was done by the experts to impart to educated people -in general those results of the new science which might be enjoyed -without deeper study. But in 1861 Max Müller gave the first series -of those _Lectures on the Science of Language_ which, in numerous -editions, did more than anything else to popularize linguistics and -served to initiate a great many students into our science. In many -ways these lectures were excellently adapted for this purpose, for -the author had a certain knack of selecting interesting illustrations -and of presenting his subject in a way that tended to create the same -enthusiasm for it that he felt himself. But his arguments do not bear -a close inspection. Too often, after stating a problem, he is found to -fly off at a tangent and to forget what he has set out to prove for -the sake of an interesting etymology or a clever paradox. He gives an -uncritical acceptance to many of Schleicher’s leading ideas; thus, the -science of linguistics is to him a physical science and has nothing to -do with philology, which is an historical science. If, however, we look -at the book itself, we shall find that everything that he counts on to -secure the interest of his reader, everything that made his lectures -so popular, is really non-naturalistic: all those brilliant exposés of -word-history are really like historical anecdotes in a book on social -evolution; they may have some bearing on the fundamental problems, -but these are rarely or never treated as real problems of natural -science. Nor does he, when taken to task, maintain his view very -seriously, but partly retracts it and half-heartedly ensconces himself -behind the dictum that everything depends on the definition you give -of “physical science” (see especially Ch 234, 442, 497)--thus calling -forth Whitney’s retort that “the implication here is that our author -has a right at his own good pleasure to lay down such a definition of -a physical science as should make the name properly applicable to the -study of this particular one among the products of human capacities.... -So he may prove that a whale is a fish, if you only allow him to define -what a fish is” (M 23 f.). - -Though Schleicher and Max Müller in their own day had few followers -in defining linguistics as a natural or physical science--the -opposite view was taken, for instance, by Curtius (K 154), Madvig and -Whitney--there can be no doubt that the naturalistic point of view -practically, though perhaps chiefly unconsciously, had wide-reaching -effects on the history of linguistic science. It was intimately -connected with the problems chiefly investigated and with the way -in which they were treated. From Grimm through Pott to Schleicher -and his contemporaries we see a growing interest in phonological -comparisons; more and more “sound-laws” were discovered, and those -found were more and more rigorously applied, with the result that -etymological investigation was attended with a degree of exactness -of which former generations had no idea. But as these phonological -studies were not, as a rule, based on a real, penetrating insight into -the nature of speech-sounds, the work of the etymologist tended more -and more to be purely mechanical, and the science of language was to -a great extent deprived of those elements which are more intimately -connected with the human ‘soul.’ Isolated vowels and consonants were -compared, isolated flexional forms and isolated words were treated more -and more in detail and explained by other isolated forms and words -in other languages, all of them being like dead leaves shaken off a -tree rather than parts of a living and moving whole. The speaking -individual and the speaking community were too much lost sight of. -Too often comparativists gained a considerable acquaintance with the -sound-laws and the grammatical forms of various languages without -knowing much about those languages themselves, or at any rate without -possessing any degree of familiarity with them. Schleicher was not -blind to the danger of this. A short time before his death he brought -out an _Indogermanische Chrestomathie_ (Weimar, 1869), and in the -preface he justifies his book by saying that “it is of great value, -besides learning the grammar, to be acquainted, however slightly, -with the languages themselves. For a comparative grammar of related -languages lays stress on what is common to a language and its sisters; -consequently, the languages may appear more alike than they are in -reality, and their idiosyncrasies may be thrown into the shade. -Linguistic specimens form, therefore, an indispensable supplement to -comparative grammar.” Other and even more weighty reasons might have -been adduced, for grammar is after all only one side of a language, -and it is certainly the best plan, if one wants to understand and -appreciate the position of any language, to start with some connected -texts of tolerable length, and only afterwards to see how its forms are -related to and may be explained by those of other languages. - -Though the mechanical school of linguists, with whom historical and -comparative phonology was more and more an end in itself, prevailed -to a great extent, the trend of a few linguists was different. -Among these one must especially mention Heymann Steinthal, who drew -his inspiration from Humboldt and devoted numerous works to the -psychology of language. Unfortunately, Steinthal was greatly inferior -to Schleicher in clearness and consistency of thought: “When I read -a work of Steinthal’s, and even many parts of Humboldt, I feel as if -walking through shifting clouds,” Max Müller remarks, with good reason, -in a letter (_Life_, i. 256). This obscurity, in connexion with the -remoteness of Steinthal’s studies, which ranged from Chinese to the -language of the Mande negroes, but paid little regard to European -languages, prevented him from exerting any powerful influence on the -linguistic thought of his generation, except perhaps through his -emphatic assertion of the truth that language can only be understood -and explained by means of psychology: his explanation of syntactic -attraction paved the way for much in Paul’s _Prinzipien_. - -The leading exponent of general linguistics after the death of -Schleicher was the American William Dwight Whitney, whose books, -_Language and the Study of Language_ (first ed. 1867) and its replica, -_The Life and Growth of Language_ (1875), were translated into several -languages and were hardly less popular than those of his antagonist, -Max Müller. Whitney’s style is less brilliant than Max Müller’s, and he -scorns the cheap triumphs which the latter gains by the multiplication -of interesting illustrations; he never wearies of running down Müller’s -paradoxes and inconsistencies,[14] from which he himself was spared by -his greater general solidity and sobriety of thought. The chief point -of divergence between them was, as already indicated, that Whitney -looked upon language as a human institution that has grown slowly -out of the necessity for mutual understanding; he was opposed to all -kinds of mysticism, and words to him were conventional signs--not, of -course, that he held that there ever was a gathering of people that -settled the meaning of each word, but in the sense of “resting on a -mutual understanding or a community of habit,” no matter how brought -about. But in spite of all differences between the two they are in -many respects alike, when viewed from the coign of vantage of the -twentieth century: both give expression to the best that had been -attained by fifty or sixty years of painstaking activity to elucidate -the mysteries of speech, and especially of Aryan words and forms, and -neither of them was deeply original enough to see through many of -the fallacies of the young science. Consequently, their views on the -structure of Proto-Aryan, on roots and their rôle, on the building-up -and decay of the form-system, are essentially the same as those of -their contemporaries, and many of their theories have now crumbled -away, including much of what they probably thought firmly rooted for -all time. - -FOOTNOTES: - -[10] It has been objected to the use of Aryan in this wide sense that -the name is also used in the restricted sense of Indian + Iranic; but -no separate name is needed for that small group other than Indo-Iranic. - -[11] In Lefmann’s book on Bopp, pp. 292 and 299, there are some -interesting quotations on this point. - -[12] For example, the correct appreciation of Scandinavian _o_ sounds -and especially the recognition of syllables without any vowel, for -instance, in G. _mittel_, _schmeicheln_, E. _heaven_, _little_; this -important truth was unnoticed by linguists till Sievers in 1876 called -attention to it and Brugmann in 1877 used it in a famous article. - -[13] A young German linguist, to whom I sent the pamphlet early in -1886, wrote to me: “Wenn man sich den spass machte und das ding -übersetzte mit der bemerkung, es sei vor vier jahren erschienen, wer -würde einem nicht trauen? Merkwürdig, dass solche sachen so unbemerkt, -‘dem kleinen veilchen gleich,’ dahinschwinden können.” A short time -afterwards the pamphlet was reprinted with a short preface by Vilh. -Thomsen (Copenhagen, 1886). - -[14] In numerous papers in _North Am. Review_ and elsewhere, and -finally in the pamphlet _Max Müller and the Science of Language, a -Criticism_ (New York, 1892). Müller’s reply to the earlier attacks is -found in _Chips from a German Workshop_, vol. iv. - - - - -CHAPTER IV - -END OF NINETEENTH CENTURY - - § 1. Achievements about 1870. § 2. New Discoveries. § 3. Phonetic - Laws and Analogy. § 4. General Tendencies. - - -IV.--§ 1. Achievements about 1870. - -In works of this period one frequently meets with expressions of pride -and joy in the wonderful results that had been achieved in comparative -linguistics in the course of a few decades. Thus Max Müller writes: -“All this becomes clear and intelligible by the light of Comparative -Grammar; anomalies vanish, exceptions prove the rule, and we perceive -more plainly every day how in language, as elsewhere, the conflict -between the freedom claimed by each individual and the resistance -offered by the community at large establishes in the end a reign of -law most wonderful, yet perfectly rational and intelligible”; and -again: “There is nothing accidental, nothing irregular, nothing without -a purpose and meaning in any part of Greek or Latin grammar. No one -who has once discovered this hidden life of language, no one who has -once found out that what seemed to be merely anomalous and whimsical -in language is but, as it were, a petrification of thought, of deep, -curious, poetical, philosophical thought, will ever rest again till -he has descended as far as he can descend into the ancient shafts of -human speech,” etc. (Ch 41 f.). Whitney says: “The difference between -the old haphazard style of etymologizing and the modern scientific -method lies in this: that the latter, while allowing everything to be -theoretically possible, accepts nothing as actual which is not proved -by sufficient evidence; it brings to bear upon each individual case a -wide circle of related facts; it imposes upon the student the necessity -of extended comparison and cautious deduction; it makes him careful -to inform himself as thoroughly as circumstances allow respecting -the history of every word he deals with” (L 386). And Benfey, in his -_Geschichte der Sprachwissenschaft_ (1869, see pp. 562 f. and 596), -arrives at the conclusion that the investigation of Aryan languages -has already attained a very great degree of certainty, and that the -reconstruction of Primitive Aryan, both in grammar and vocabulary, -must be considered as in the main settled in such a way that only some -details are still doubtful; thus, it is certain that the first person -singular ended in _-mi_, and that this is a phonetic reduction of the -pronoun _ma_, and that the word for ‘horse’ was _akva_. This feeling -of pride is certainly in a great measure justified if we compare the -achievements of linguistic science at that date with the etymologies of -the eighteenth century; it must also be acknowledged that 90 per cent. -of the etymologies in the best-known Aryan languages which must be -recognized as established beyond any reasonable doubt had already been -discovered before 1870, while later investigations have only added a -small number that may be considered firmly established, together with a -great many more or less doubtful collocations. But, on the other hand, -in the light of later research, we can now see that much of what was -then considered firm as a rock did not deserve the implicit trust then -placed in it. - - -IV.--§ 2. New Discoveries. - -This is true in the first place with regard to the phonetic structure -ascribed to Proto-Aryan. A series of brilliant discoveries made about -the year 1880 profoundly modified the views of scholars about the -consonantal and still more about the vocalic system of our family of -languages. This is particularly true of the so-called palatal law.[15] -So long as it was taken for granted that Sanskrit had in all essential -points preserved the ancient sound system, while Greek and the other -languages represented younger stages, no one could explain why Sanskrit -in some cases had the palatals _c_ and _j_ (sounds approximately like -the initial sounds of E. _chicken_ and _joy_) where the other languages -have the velar sounds _k_ and _g_. It was now recognized that so far -from the distribution of the two classes of sounds in Sanskrit being -arbitrary, it followed strict rules, though these were not to be -seen from Sanskrit itself. Where Sanskrit _a_ following the consonant -corresponded to Greek or Latin _o_, Sanskrit had velar _k_ or _g_; -where, on the other hand, it corresponded to Greek or Latin _e_, -Sanskrit had palatal _c_ or _j_. Thus we have, for instance, _c_ in -Sansk. _ca_, ‘and’ = Greek _te_, Lat. _que_, but _k_ in _kakša_ = Lat. -_coxa_; the difference between the two consonants in a perfect like -_cakara_, ‘have done,’ is dependent on the same vowel alternation as -that of Greek _léloipa_; _c_ in the verb _pacati_, ‘cooks,’ as against -_k_ in the substantive _pakas_, ‘cooking,’ corresponds to the vowels -in Greek _légei_ as against _lógos_, etc. All this shows that Sanskrit -itself must once have had the vowels _e_ and _o_ instead of _a_; before -the front vowel _e_ the consonant has then been fronted or palatalized, -as _ch_ in E. _chicken_ is due to the following front vowel, while _k_ -has been preserved before _o_ in _cock_. Sanskrit is thus shown to be -in some important respects less conservative than Greek, a truth which -was destined profoundly to modify many theories concerning the whole -family of languages. As Curtius said, with some resentment of the -change in view then taking place, “Sanskrit, once the oracle of the -rising science and trusted blindly, is now put on one side; instead -of the traditional _ex oriente lux_ the saying is now _in oriente -tenebræ_” (K 97). - -The new views held in regard to Aryan vowels also resulted in a -thorough revision of the theory of apophony (ablaut). The great mass -of Aryan vowel alternations were shown to form a vast and singularly -consistent system, the main features of which may be gathered from the -following tabulation of a few select Greek examples, arranged into -three columns, each representing one ‘grade’: - - I II III - - (1) pétomai pótē eptómai - (s)ékhō (s)ókhos éskhon - - (2) leípō léloipa élipon - - (3) peúthomai -- eputhómēn - - (4) dérkomai dédorka édrakon - - (5) teínō (*tenjo) tónos tatós - -It is outside our scope to show how this scheme gives us a natural clue -to the vowels in such verbs as E. I _ride_, II _rode_, III _ridden_ -(2), G. I _werde_, II _ward_, III _geworden_ (4), or I _binde_, II -_band_, III _gebunden_ (5). It will be seen from the Greek examples -that grade I is throughout characterized by the vowel _e_ and grade -II by the vowel _o_; as for grade III, the vowel of I and II has -entirely disappeared in (1), where there is no vowel between the -two consonants, and in (2) and (3), where the element found after -_e_ and _o_ and forming a diphthong with these has now become a full -(syllabic) vowel _i_ and _u_ by itself. In (4) Sanskrit has in grade -III a syllabic _r_ (_adrçam_ = Gr. _édrakon_), while Greek has _ra_, -or in some instances _ar_, and Gothonic has _ur_ or _or_ according to -the vowel of the following syllable. It was this fact that suggested -to Brugmann his theory that in (5) Greek _a_, Lat. _in_, Goth. _un_ in -the third grade originated in syllabic _ṇ_, and that _tatós_ thus stood -for *_tṇtós_; he similarly explained Gr. _déka_, Lat. _decem_, Gothic -_taihun_, E. _ten_ from *_dekṃ_ with syllabic _m_. I do not believe -that his theory is entirely correct; but so much is certain, that in -all instances grade III is characterized by a reduction of the vowel -that appears in the two other grades as _e_ and _o_, and there can be -no doubt that this reduction is due to want of stress. This being so, -it becomes impossible to consider _lip_ the original root-form, which -in _leip_ and _loip_ has been extended, and the new theory of apophony -thus disposes of the old theory, based on the Indian grammarians’ -view that the shortest form was the root-form, which was then raised -through ‘guna’ and ‘vrddhi.’ This now is reversed, and the fuller -form is shown to be the oldest, which in some cases was shortened -according to a process paralleled in many living languages. Bopp was -right in his rejection of Grimm’s theory of an inner, significatory -reason for apophony, as apophony is now shown to have been due to a -mechanical cause, though a different one from that suggested by Bopp -(see above, p. 53); and Grimm was also wrong in another respect, -because apophony is found from the first in noun-formations as well as -in verbs, where Grimm believed it to have been instituted to indicate -tense differences, with which it had originally nothing to do. Apophony -even appears in other syllables than the root syllable; the new view -thus quite naturally paved the way for skepticism with regard to the -old doctrine that Aryan roots were necessarily monosyllabic; and -scholars soon began to admit dissyllabic ‘bases’ in place of the old -roots; instead of _lip_, the earliest accessible form thus came to be -something like _leipo_ or _leipe_. In this way the new vowel system had -far-reaching consequences and made linguists look upon many problems -in a new light. It should be noted, however, that the mechanical -explanation of apophony from difference in accent applies only to -grade III, in contradistinction to grades I and II; the reason of the -alternation between the _e_ of I and the _o_ of II is by no means clear. - -The investigations leading to the discovery of the palatal law and -the new theory of apophony were only a part of the immense labour of -a number of able linguists in the ’seventies and ’eighties, which -cleared up many obscure points in Aryan phonology and morphology. One -of the most famous discoveries was that of the Dane Karl Verner, that -a whole series of consonant alternations in the old Gothonic languages -was dependent on accent, and (more remarkable still) on the primeval -accent, preserved in its oldest form in Sanskrit only, and differing -from that of modern Gothonic languages in resting in some instances -on the ending and in others on the root. When it was realized that -the fact that German has _t_ in _vater_, but _d_ in _bruder_, was due -to a different accentuation of the two words three or four thousand -years ago, or that the difference between _s_ and _r_ in E. _was_ and -_were_ was connected with the fact that perfect singulars in Sanskrit -are stressed on the root, but plurals on the ending, this served not -only to heighten respect for the linguistic science that was able to -demonstrate such truths, but also to increase the feeling that the -world of sounds was subject to strict laws comparable to those of -natural science. - - -IV.--§ 3. Phonetic Laws and Analogy. - -The ‘blind’ operation of phonetic laws became the chief tenet of a -new school of ‘young-grammarians’ or ‘junggrammatiker’ (Brugmann, -Delbrück, Osthoff, Paul and others), who somewhat noisily flourished -their advance upon earlier linguists and justly roused the anger -not only of their own teachers, including Curtius, but also of -fellow-students like Johannes Schmidt and Collitz. For some years a -fierce discussion took place on the principles of linguistic science, -in which young-grammarians tried to prove deductively the truth of -their favourite thesis that “Sound-laws admit of no exceptions” (first, -it seems, enounced by Leskien). Osthoff wrongly maintained that sound -changes belonged to physiology and analogical change to psychology; but -though that distribution of the two kinds of change to two different -domains was untenable, the distinction in itself was important and -proved a valuable, though perhaps sometimes too easy instrument in the -hands of the historical grammarian. It was quite natural that those who -insisted on undeviating phonetic laws should turn their attention to -those cases in which forms appeared that did not conform to these laws, -and try to explain them; and thus they inevitably were led to recognize -the immense importance of analogical formations in the economy of all -languages. Such formations had long been known, but little attention -had been paid to them, and they were generally termed ‘false analogies’ -and looked upon as corruptions or inorganic formations found only or -chiefly in a degenerate age, in which the true meaning and composition -of the old forms was no longer understood. Men like Curtius were -scandalized at the younger school explaining so many even of the -noble forms of ancient Greek as due to this upstart force of analogy. -His opponents contended that the name of ‘false analogy’ was wrong -and misleading: the analogy in itself was perfect and was handled -with unerring instinct in each case. They likewise pointed out that -analogical formations, so far from being perversions of a late age, -really represented one of the vital principles of language, without -which it could never have come into existence. - -One of the first to take the new point of view and to explain it -clearly was Hermann Paul. I quote from an early article (as translated -by Sweet, CP 112) the following passages, which really struck a new -note in linguistic theory: - -“There is one simple fact which should never be left out of sight, -namely, that even in the parent Indogermanic language, long before its -split-up, there were no longer any roots, stems, and suffixes, but only -ready-made _words_, which were employed without the slightest thought -of their composite nature. And it is only of such ready-made words -that the store is composed from which everyone draws when he speaks. -He has no stock of stems and terminations at his disposal from which -he could construct the form required for each separate occasion. Not -that he must necessarily have heard and learnt by heart every form he -uses. This would, in fact, be impossible. He is, on the contrary, able -of himself to form cases of nouns, tenses of verbs, etc., which he has -either never heard or else not noticed specially; but, as there is no -combining of stem and suffix, this can only be done on the pattern of -the other ready-made combinations which he has learnt from his fellows. -These latter are first learnt one by one, and then gradually associated -into groups which correspond to the grammatical categories, but are -never clearly conceived as such without special training. This grouping -not only greatly aids the memory, but also makes it possible to produce -other combinations. And this is what we call _analogy_.” - -“It is, therefore, clear that, while speaking, everyone is incessantly -producing analogical forms. _Reproduction by memory_ and _new-formation -by means of association_ are its two indispensable factors. It is a -mistake to assume a language as given in grammar and dictionary, that -is, the whole body of possible words and forms, as something concrete, -and to forget that it is nothing but an abstraction devoid of reality, -and that _the actual language exists only in the individual_, from whom -it cannot be separated even in scientific investigation, if we will -understand its nature and development. To comprehend the existence -of each separate spoken form, we must not ask ‘Is it current in the -language?’ or ‘Is it conformable to the laws of the language as deduced -by the grammarians?’ but ‘Has he who has just employed it previously -had it in his memory, or has he formed it himself for the first time, -and, if so, according to what analogy?’ When, for instance, anyone -employs the plural _milben_ in German, it may be that he has learnt -it from others, or else that he has only heard the singular _milbe_, -but knows that such words as _lerche_, _schwalbe_, etc., form their -plural _lerchen_, etc., so that the association _milbe_-_milben_ is -unconsciously suggested to him. He may also have heard the plural -_milben_, but remembers it so imperfectly that he would forget it -entirely were it not associated in his mind with a series of similar -forms which help him to recall it. It is, therefore, often difficult to -determine the share memory and creative fancy have had in each separate -case.” - -Linguists thus set about it seriously to think of language in terms -of speaking individuals, who have learnt their mother-tongue in the -ordinary way, and who now employ it in their daily intercourse with -other men and women, without in each separate case knowing what they -owe to others and what they have to create on the spur of the moment. -Just as Sokrates fetched philosophy down from the skies, so also now -linguists fetched words and forms down from vocabularies and grammars -and placed them where their natural home is, in the minds and on the -lips of ordinary men who are neither lexicographers nor grammarians, -but who nevertheless master their language with sufficient ease and -correctness for all ordinary purposes. Linguists now were confronted -with some general problems which had not greatly troubled their -predecessors (with the solitary exception of Bredsdorff, whose work -was entirely overlooked), namely, What are the causes of changes -in language? How are they brought about, and how should they be -classified? Many articles on these questions appeared in linguistic -periodicals about the year 1880, but the profoundest and fullest -treatment was found in a masterly book by H. Paul, _Prinzipien der -Sprachgeschichte_, the first edition of which (1880) exercised a very -considerable influence on linguistic thought, while the subsequent -editions were constantly enlarged and improved so as to contain a -wealth of carefully sifted material to illustrate the various processes -of linguistic change. It should also be noted that Paul paid more and -more attention to syntax, and that this part of grammar, which had been -neglected by Bopp and Schleicher and their contemporaries, was about -this time taken up by some of the leading linguists, who showed that -the comparative and historical method was capable of throwing a flood -of light on syntax no less than on morphology (Delbrück, Ziemer). - - -IV.--§ 4. General Tendencies. - -While linguists in the ’eighties were taking up, as we have seen, -a great many questions of vast general importance that had not -been treated by the older generation, on the other hand they were -losing interest in some of the problems that had occupied their -predecessors. This was the case with the question of the ultimate -origin of grammatical endings. So late as 1869 Benfey included among -Bopp’s ‘brilliant discoveries’ his theory that the _s_ of the aorist -and of the future was derived from the verb _as_, ‘to be,’ and that -the endings of the Latin imperfect _-bam_ and future _-bo_ were from -the synonymous verb _fu_ = Sanskrit _bhu_ (Gesch 377), and the next -year Raumer reckons the same theories among Bopp’s ‘most important -discoveries.’ But soon after this we see that speculations of this kind -somehow go out of fashion. One of the last books to indulge in them -to any extent is Scherer’s once famous _Zur Geschichte der deutschen -Sprache_ (2nd ed., 1878), in the eighth chapter of which the writer -disports himself among primitive roots, endings, prepositions and -pronouns, which he identifies and differentiates with such extreme -boldness and confidence in his own wild fancies that a sober-minded -man of the twentieth century cannot but feel dazed and giddy. The -ablest linguists of the new school simply left these theories aside: -no new explanations of the same description were advanced, and the old -ones were not substantiated by the ascertained phenomena of living -languages. So much was found in these of the most absorbing interest -that scholars ceased to care for what might lie behind Proto-Aryan; -some even went so far as to deprecate in strong expressions any -attempts at what they termed ‘glottogonic’ theories. To these -matter-of-fact linguists all speculations as to the ultimate origin of -language were futile and nebulous, a verdict which might be in no small -degree justified by much of what had been written on the subject by -quasi-philosophers and quasi-linguists. The aversion to these questions -was shown as early as 1866, when La Société de Linguistique was -founded in Paris. Section 2 of the statutes of the Society expressly -states that “La Société n’admet aucune communication concernant, soit -l’origine du langage, soit la création d’une langue universelle”--both -of them questions which, as they _can_ be treated in a scientific -spirit, should not be left exclusively to dilettanti. - -The last forty years have witnessed an extraordinary activity on the -part of scholars in investigating all domains of the Aryan languages -in the light of the new general views and by the aid of the methods -that have now become common property. Phonological investigations -have no doubt had the lion’s share and have to a great extent been -signalized by that real insight into physiological phonetics which -had been wanting in earlier linguists; but very much excellent work -has also been done in morphology, syntax and semantics; and in all -these domains much has been gained by considering words not as mere -isolated units, but as parts of sentences, or, better, of connected -speech. In phonetics more and more attention has been paid to sentence -phonetics and ‘sandhi phenomena’; the heightened interest in everything -concerning ‘accent’ (stress and pitch) has also led to investigations -of sentence-stress and sentence-melody; the intimate connexion between -forms and their use or function in the sentence, in other words their -syntax, has been more and more recognized; and finally, if semantics -(the study of the significations of words) has become a real science -instead of being a curiosity shop of isolated specimens, this has only -been rendered possible through seeing words as connected with other -words to form complete utterances. But this change of attitude could -not have been brought about unless linguists had studied texts in the -different languages to a far greater extent than had been done in -previous periods; thus, naturally, the antagonism formerly often felt -between the linguistic and the purely philological study of the same -language has tended to disappear, and many scholars have produced work -both in their particular branch of linguistics and in the corresponding -philology. There can be no doubt that this development has been -profitable to both domains of scientific activity. - -Another beneficial change is the new attitude taken with regard to the -study of living speech. The science of linguistics had long stood in -the sign of Cancer and had been constantly looking backwards--to its -own great loss. Now, with the greater stress laid on phonetics and on -the psychology of language, the necessity of observing the phenomena -of actual everyday speech was more clearly perceived. Among pioneers -in this respect I must specially mention Henry Sweet; now there is a -steadily growing interest in living speech as the necessary foundation -of all general theorizing. And with interest comes knowledge. - -It is outside the purpose of this volume to give the history of -linguistic study during the last forty years in the same way as I have -attempted to give it for the period before 1880, and I must therefore -content myself with a few brief remarks on general tendencies. I even -withstand the temptation to try and characterize the two greatest works -on general linguistics that have appeared during this period, those by -Georg v. d. Gabelentz and Wilhelm Wundt: important and in many ways -excellent as they are, they have not exercised the same influence -on contemporary linguistic research as some of their predecessors. -Personally I owe incomparably much more to the former than to the -latter, who is much less of a linguist than of a psychologist and whose -pages seem to me often richer in words than in fertilizing ideas. As -for the rest, I can give only a bare alphabetical list of some of -the writers who during this period have dealt with the more general -problems of linguistic change or linguistic theory, and must not -attempt any appreciation of their works: Bally, Baudouin de Courtenay, -Bloomfield, Bréal, Delbrück, van Ginneken, Hale, Henry, Hirt, Axel -Kock, Meillet, Meringer, Noreen, Oertel, Pedersen, Sandfeld (Jensen), -de Saussure, Schuchardt, Sechehaye, Streitberg, Sturtevant, Sütterlin, -Sweet, Uhlenbeck, Vossler, Wechssler. In the following parts of my work -there will be many opportunities of mentioning their views, especially -when I disagree with them, for I am afraid it will be impossible always -to indicate what I owe to their suggestions. - -In the history of linguistic science we have seen in one period a -tendency to certain large syntheses (the classification of languages -into isolating, agglutinative and flexional, and the corresponding -theory of three periods with its corollary touching the origin of -flexional endings), and we have seen how these syntheses were later -discredited, though never actually disproved, linguists contenting -themselves with detailed comparisons and explanations of single words, -forms or sounds without troubling about their ultimate origin or -about the evolutionary tendencies of the whole system or structure -of language. The question may therefore be raised, were Bopp and -Schleicher wrong in attempting these large syntheses? It would appear -from the expressions of some modern linguists that they thought that -any such comprehensive generalization or any glottogonic theory were -in itself of evil. But this can never be admitted. Science, of its -very nature, aims at larger and larger generalizations, more and more -comprehensive formulas, so as finally to bring about that “unification -of knowledge” of which Herbert Spencer speaks. It was therefore quite -right of the early linguists to propound those great questions; and -their failure to solve them in a way that could satisfy the stricter -demands of a later generation should not be charged too heavily -against them. It was also quite right of the moderns to reject their -premature solutions (though this was often done without any adequate -examination), but it was decidedly wrong to put the questions out -of court altogether.[16] These great questions have to be put over -and over again, till a complete solution is found; and the refusal to -face these difficulties has produced a certain barrenness in modern -linguistics, which must strike any impartial observer, however much he -admits the fertility of the science in detailed investigations. Breadth -of vision is not conspicuous in modern linguistics, and to my mind -this lack is chiefly due to the fact that linguists have neglected all -problems connected with a valuation of language. What is the criterion -by which one word or one form should be preferred to another? (most -linguists refuse to deal with such questions of preference or of -correctness of speech). Are the changes that we see gradually taking -place in languages to be considered as on the whole beneficial or -the opposite? (most linguists pooh-pooh such questions). Would it be -possible to construct an international language by which persons in -different countries could easily communicate with one another? (most -linguists down to the present day have looked upon all who favour such -ideas as visionaries and Utopians). It is my firm conviction that such -questions as these admit of really scientific treatment and should be -submitted to serious discussion. But before tackling those of them -which fall within the plan of this work, it will be well to deal with -some fundamental facts of what is popularly called the ‘life’ of -language, and first of all with the manner in which a child acquires -its mother-tongue. For as language exists only in individuals and means -some specific activities of human beings which are not inborn, but have -to be learnt by each of them separately from his fellow-beings, it is -important to examine somewhat in detail how this interaction of the -individual and of the surrounding society is brought about. This, then, -will occupy us in Book II. - -FOOTNOTES: - -[15] Who was the discoverer of the palatal law? This has been -hotly discussed, and as the law was in so far anticipated by other -discoveries of the ’seventies as to be “in the air,” it is perhaps -futile to try to fix the paternity on any single man. However, it seems -now perfectly clear that Vilhelm Thomsen was the first to mention it in -his lectures (1875), but unfortunately the full and able paper in which -he intended to lay it before the world was delayed for a couple of -years and then kept in his drawers when he heard that Johannes Schmidt -was preparing a paper on the same subject: it was printed in 1920 in -the second volume of his _Samlede Afhandlinger_ (from the original -manuscript). Esaias Tegnér had found the law independently and had -printed five sheets of a book _De ariska språkens palataler_, which -he withdrew when he found that Collitz and de Saussure had expressed -similar views. Karl Verner, too, had independently arrived at the same -results; see his _Afhandlinger og Breve_, 109 ff., 305. - -[16] “Es ist besser, bei solchen versuchen zu irren als gar nicht -darüber nachzudenken,” Curtius, K 145. - - - - -_BOOK II_ - -THE CHILD - - - - -CHAPTER V - -SOUNDS - - § 1. From Screaming to Talking. § 2. First Sounds. § 3. Sound-laws - of the Next Stage. § 4. Groups of Sounds. § 5. Mutilations and - Reduplications. § 6. Correction. § 7. Tone. - - -V.--§ 1. From Screaming to Talking. - -A Danish philosopher has said: “In his whole life man achieves nothing -so great and so wonderful as what he achieved when he learnt to talk.” -When Darwin was asked in which three years of his life a man learnt -most, he said: “The first three.” - -A child’s linguistic development covers three periods--the screaming -time, the crowing or babbling time, and the talking time. But the -last is a long one, and must again be divided into two periods--that -of the “little language,” the child’s own language, and that of the -common language or language of the community. In the former the child -is linguistically an individualist, in the latter he is more and more -socialized. - -Of the screaming time little need be said. A child’s scream is not -uttered primarily as a means of conveying anything to others, and so -far is not properly to be called speech. But if from the child’s side -a scream is not a way of telling anything, its elders may still read -something in it and hurry to relieve the trouble. And if the child -comes to remark--as it soon will--that whenever it cries someone comes -and brings it something pleasant, if only company, it will not be long -till it makes use of this instrument whenever it is uneasy or wants -something. The scream, which was at first a reflex action, is now a -voluntary action. And many parents have discovered that the child has -learnt to use its power of screaming to exercise a tyrannical power -over them--so that they have had to walk up and down all night with a -screaming child that prefers this way of spending the night to lying -quietly in its cradle. The only course is brutally to let the baby -scream till it is tired, and persist in never letting it get its desire -_because_ it screams for it, but only because what it desires is good -for it. The child learns its lesson, and a scream is once more what -it was at first, an involuntary, irresistible result of the fact that -something is wrong. - -Screaming has, however, another side. It is of physiological value as -an exercise of all the muscles and appliances which are afterwards to -be called into play for speech and song. Nurses say--and there may be -something in it--that the child who screams loudest as a baby becomes -the best singer later. - -Babbling time produces pleasanter sounds which are more adapted for -the purposes of speech. Cooing, crowing, babbling--i.e. uttering -meaningless sounds and series of sounds--is a delightful exercise like -sprawling with outstretched arms and legs or trying to move the tiny -fingers. It has been well said that for a long time a child’s dearest -toy is its tongue--that is, of course, not the tongue only, but the -other organs of speech as well, especially the lips and vocal chords. -At first the movements of these organs are as uncontrolled as those -of the arms, but gradually they become more systematic, and the boy -knows what sound he wishes to utter and is in a position to produce it -exactly. - -First, then, come single vowels or vowels with a single consonant -preceding them, as _la_, _ra_, _lö_, etc., though a baby’s sounds -cannot be identified with any of ours or written down with our -letters. For, though the head and consequently the mouth capacity is -disproportionally great in an infant and grows more rapidly than its -limbs, there is still a great difference between its mouth capacity and -that required to utter normal speech-sounds. I have elsewhere (PhG, -p. 81 ff.) given the results of a series of measurings of the jaw in -children and adults and discussed the importance of these figures for -phonetic theory: while there is no growth of any importance during the -talking period (for a child of five may have the same jaw-length as a -man of thirty-seven), the growth is enormous during the first months -of a child’s life: in the case of my own child, from 45 mm. a few days -after birth to 60 mm. at three months old and 75 mm. at eleven months, -while the average of grown-up men is 99 mm. and of women 93 mm. The -consequence is that the sounds of the baby are different from ours, and -that even when they resemble ours the mechanism of production may be -different from the normal one; when my son during the first weeks said -something like _la_, I was able to see distinctly that the tip of the -tongue was not at all in the position required for our _l_. This want -of congruence between the acoustic manners of operation in the infant -and the adult no doubt gives us the key to many of the difficulties -that have puzzled previous observers of small children. - -Babbling or crowing begins not earlier than the third week; it may be, -not till the seventh or eighth week. The first sound exercises are to -be regarded as muscular exercises pure and simple, as is clear from -the fact that deaf-mutes amuse themselves with them, although they -cannot themselves hear them. But the moment comes when the hearing -child finds a pleasure in hearing its own sounds, and a most important -step is taken when the little one begins to hear a resemblance between -the sounds uttered by its mother or nurse and its own. The mother will -naturally answer the baby’s syllables by repeating the same, and when -the baby recognizes the likeness, it secures an inexhaustible source -of pleasure, and after some time reaches the next stage, when it tries -itself to imitate what is said to it (generally towards the close of -the first year). The value of this exercise cannot be over-estimated: -the more that parents understand how to play this game with the -baby--of saying something and letting the baby say it after, however -meaningless the syllable-sequences that they make--the better will -be the foundation for the child’s later acquisition and command of -language. - - -V.--§ 2. First Sounds. - -It is generally said that the order in which the child learns to utter -the different sounds depends on their difficulty: the easiest sounds -are produced first. That is no doubt true in the main; but when we go -into details we find that different writers bring forward lists of -sounds in different order. All are agreed, however, that among the -consonants the labials, _p_, _b_ and _m_, are early sounds, if not the -earliest. The explanation has been given that the child can see the -working of his mother’s lips in these sounds and therefore imitates -her movements. This implies far too much conscious thought on the part -of the baby, who utters his ‘ma’ or ‘mo’ before he begins to imitate -anything said to him by his surroundings. Moreover, it has been pointed -out that the child’s attention is hardly ever given to its mother’s -mouth, but is steadily fixed on her eyes. The real reason is probably -that the labial muscles used to produce _b_ or _m_ are the same that -the baby has exercised in sucking the breast or the bottle. It would be -interesting to learn if blind children also produce the labial sounds -first. - -Along with the labial sounds the baby produces many other sounds--vowel -and consonant--and in these cases one is certain that it has not been -able to see how these sounds are produced by its mother. Even in the -case of the labials we know that what distinguishes _m_ from _b_, the -lowering of the soft palate, and _b_ from _p_, the vibrations of the -vocal chords, is invisible. Some of the sounds produced by means of the -tongue may be too hard to pronounce till the muscles of the tongue have -been exercised in consequence of the child having begun to eat more -solid things than milk. - -By the end of the first year the number of sounds which the little -babbler has mastered is already considerable, and he loves to combine -long series of the same syllables, dadadada ..., nenenene ..., -bygnbygnbygn ..., etc. That is a game which need not even cease when -the child is able to talk actual language. It is strange that among an -infant’s sounds one can often detect sounds--for instance _k_, _g_, -_h_, and uvular _r_--which the child will find difficulty in producing -afterwards when they occur in real words, or which may be unknown -to the language which it will some day speak. The explanation lies -probably in the difference between doing a thing in play or without a -plan--when it is immaterial which movement (sound) is made--and doing -the same thing of fixed intention when this sound, and this sound only, -is required, at a definite point in the syllable, and with this or that -particular sound before and after. Accordingly, great difficulties -come to be encountered when the child begins more consciously and -systematically to imitate his elders. Some sounds come without effort -and may be used incessantly, to the detriment of others which the child -may have been able previously to produce in play; and a time even -comes when the stock of sounds actually diminishes, while particular -sounds acquire greater precision. Dancing masters, singing masters and -gymnastic teachers have similar experiences. After some lessons the -child may seem more awkward than it was before the lessons began. - -The ‘little language’ which the child makes for itself by imperfect -imitation of the sounds of its elders seems so arbitrary that it -may well be compared to the child’s first rude drawings of men and -animals. A Danish boy named _Gustav_ (1.6)[17] called himself [dodado] -and turned the name _Karoline_ into [nnn]. Other Danish children -made _skammel_ into [gramn] or [gap], _elefant_ into [vat], _Karen_ -into [gaja], etc. A few examples from English children: Hilary M. -(1.6) called _Ireland_ (her sister) [a·ni], Gordon M. (1.10) called -_Millicent_ (his sister) [dadu·]. Tony E. (1.11) called his playmate -_Sheila_ [dubabud]. - - -V.--§ 3. Sound-laws of the Next Stage. - -As the child gets away from the peculiarities of his individual ‘little -language,’ his speech becomes more regular, and a linguist can in -many cases see reasons for his distortions of normal words. When he -replaces one sound by another there is always some common element in -the formation of the two sounds, which causes a kindred impression on -the ear, though _we_ may have difficulty in detecting it because we are -so accustomed to noticing the difference. There is generally a certain -system in the sound substitutions of children, and in many instances we -are justified in speaking of ‘strictly observed sound-laws.’ Let us now -look at some of these. - -Children in all countries tend to substitute [t] for [k]: both sounds -are produced by a complete stoppage of the breath for the moment by the -tongue, the only difference being that it is the back of the tongue -which acts in one case, and the tip of the tongue in the other. A child -who substitutes _t_ for _k_ will also substitute _d_ for _g_; if he -says ‘tat’ for ‘cat’ he will say ‘do’ for ‘go.’ - -_R_ is a difficult sound. Hilary M. (2.0) has no _r_’s in her speech. -Initially they become _w_, as in [wʌn] for ‘run,’ medially between -vowels they become _l_, as in [veli, beli] for ‘very, berry,’ in -consonantal combinations they are lost, as in [kai, bʌʃ] for ‘cry, -brush.’ Tony E. (1.10 to 3.0) for medial _r_ between vowels first -substituted _d_, as in [vedi] for ‘very,’ and later _g_ [vegi]; -similarly in [mu·gi] for ‘Muriel,’ [tægi] for ‘carry’; he often dropped -initial _r_, e.g. _oom_ for ‘room.’ It is not unusual for children who -use _w_ for _r_ in most combinations to say [tʃ] for _tr_ and [dʒ] for -_dr_, as in ‘chee,’ ‘jawer’ for ‘tree,’ ‘drawer.’ This illustrates -the fact that what to us is _one_ sound, and therefore represented -in writing by _one_ letter, appears to the child’s ear as different -sounds--and generally the phonetician will agree with the child that -there are really differences in the articulation of the sound according -to position in the syllable and to surroundings, only the child -exaggerates the dissimilarities, just as we in writing one and the same -letter exaggerate the similarity. - -The two _th_ sounds offer some difficulties and are often imitated as -_f_ and _v_ respectively, as in ‘frow’ and ‘muvver’ for ‘throw’ and -‘mother’; others say ‘ze’ or ‘de’ for ‘the.’ Hilary M. (2.0) has great -difficulty with _th_ and _s_; _th_ usually becomes [ʃ], [beʃ, ti·ʃ, -ʃri·] for ‘Beth,’ ‘teeth,’ ‘three’; _s_ becomes [ʃ], e.g. [franʃiʃ, -ʃti·m] for ‘Francis,’ ‘steam’; in the same way _z_ becomes [ʒ] as in -[lʌbʒ, bouʒ] for ‘loves,’ ‘Bowes’; _sw_ becomes [fw] as in [fwiŋ, -fwi·t] for ‘swing,’ ‘sweet.’ She drops _l_ in consonantal combinations, -e.g. [ki·n, kaim, kɔk, ʃi·p] for ‘clean,’ ‘climb,’ ‘clock,’ ‘sleep.’ - -Sometimes it requires a phonetician’s knowledge to understand the -individual sound-laws of a child. Thus I pick out from some specimens -given by O’Shea, p. 135 f. (girl, 2.9), the following words: _pell_ -(smell), _teeze_ (sneeze), _poke_ (smoke), _tow_ (snow), and formulate -the rule: _s_ + a nasal became the voiceless stop corresponding to the -nasal, a kind of assimilation, in which the place of articulation and -the mouth-closure of the nasals were preserved, and the sound was made -unvoiced and non-nasal as the _s_. In other combinations _m_ and _n_ -were intact. - -Some further faults are illustrated in Tony E.’s [tʃouz, pʌg, pus, -tæm, pʌm, bæk, pi·z, nouʒ, ɔk, es, u·] for _clothes_, _plug_, _push_, -_tram_, _plum_, _black_, _please_, _nose_, _clock_, _yes_, _you_. - - -V.--§ 4. Groups of Sounds. - -Even when a sound by itself can be pronounced, the child often finds it -hard to pronounce it when it forms part of a group of sounds. _S_ is -often dropped before another consonant, as in ‘tummy’ for ‘stomach.’ -Other examples have already been given above. Hilary M. (2.0) had -difficulty with _lp_ and said [hæpl] for ‘help.’ She also said [ointən] -for ‘ointment’; C. M. L. (2.3) said ‘sikkums’ for ‘sixpence.’ Tony E. -(2.0) turns _grannie_ into [nægi]. When initial consonant groups are -simplified, it is generally, though not always, the stop that remains: -_b_ instead of _bl-_, _br-_, _k_ instead of _kr-_, _sk-_, _skr-_, _p_ -instead of _pl-_, _pr-_, _spr-_, etc. For the groups occurring medially -and finally no general rule seems possible. - - -V.--§ 5. Mutilations and Reduplications. - -To begin with, the child is unable to master long sequences of -syllables; he prefers monosyllables and often emits them singly and -separated by pauses. Even in words that to us are inseparable wholes -some children will make breaks between syllables, e.g. Shef-field, -Ing-land. But more often they will give only part of the word, -generally the last syllable or syllables; hence we get pet-names like -_Bet_ or _Beth_ for Elizabeth and forms like ‘tatoes’ for potatoes, -‘chine’ for machine, ‘tina’ for concertina, ‘tash’ for moustache, etc. -Hilary M. (1.10) called an express-cart a _press-cart_, bananas and -pyjamas _nanas_ and _jamas_. - -It is not, however, the production of long sequences of syllables -in itself that is difficult to the child, for in its meaningless -babbling it may begin very early to pronounce long strings of sounds -without any break; but the difficulty is to remember what sounds -have to be put together to bring about exactly this or that word. We -grown-up people may experience just the same sort of difficulty if -after hearing once the long name of a Bulgarian minister or a Sanskrit -book we are required to repeat it at once. Hence we should not wonder -at such pronunciations as [pekəlout] for _petticoat_ or [efelənt] -for _elephant_ (Beth M., 2.6); Hilary M. called a _caterpillar_ a -_pillarcat_. Other transpositions are _serreval_ for _several_ and -_ocken_ for _uncle_; cf. also _wops_ for _wasp_. - -To explain the frequent reduplications found in children’s language it -is not necessary, as some learned authors have done, to refer to the -great number of reduplicated words in the languages of primitive tribes -and to see in the same phenomenon in our own children an atavistic -return to primitive conditions, on the Häckelian assumption that the -development of each individual has to pass rapidly through the same -(‘phylogenetic’) stages as the whole lineage of his ancestors. It is -simpler and more natural to refer these reduplications to the pleasure -always felt in repeating the same muscular action until one is tired. -The child will repeat over and over again the same movements of legs -and arms, and we do the same when we wave our hand or a handkerchief -or when we nod our head several times to signify assent, etc. When we -laugh we repeat the same syllable consisting of _h_ and a more or less -indistinct vowel, and when we sing a melody without words we are apt to -‘reduplicate’ indefinitely. Thus also with the little ones. Apart from -such words as _papa_ and _mamma_, to which we shall have to revert in -another chapter (VIII, § 8), children will often form words from those -of their elders by repeating one syllable; cf. _puff-puff_, _gee-gee_. -Tracy (p. 132) records _pepe_ for ‘pencil,’ _kaka_ for ‘Carrie.’ For a -few weeks (1.11) Hilary M. reduplicated whole words, e.g. _king-king_, -_ring-ring_ (i.e. bell), _water-water_. Tony F. (1.10) uses [touto] for -his own name. Hence pet-names like _Dodo_; they are extremely frequent -in French--for instance, _Fifine_, _Lolotte_, _Lolo_, _Mimi_; the name -_Daudet_ has arisen in a similar way from _Claudet_, a diminutive of -Claude. - - * * * * * - -It is a similar phenomenon (a kind of partial reduplication) when -sounds at a distance affect one another, as when Hilary M. (2.0) said -[gɔgi] for _doggie_, [bɔbin] for _Dobbin_, [dezmən di·n] for _Jesmond -Dene_, [baikikl] for _bicycle_, [kekl] for _kettle_. Tracy (p. 133) -mentions _bopoo_ for ‘bottle,’ in which _oo_ stands for the hollow -sound of syllabic _l_. One correspondent mentions _whoofing-cough_ for -‘whooping-cough’ (where the final sound has crept into the first word) -and _chicken-pops_ for ‘chicken-pox.’ Some children say ‘aneneme’ for -_anemone_; and in S. L. (4.9) this caused a curious confusion during -the recent war: “Mother, there must be two sorts of anenemies, flowers -and Germans.” - -Dr. Henry Bradley once told me that his youngest child had a difficulty -with the name _Connie_, which was made alternatingly [tɔni] and -[kɔŋi], in both cases with two consonants articulated at the same -point. Similar instances are mentioned in German books on children’s -language, thus _gigarr_ for ‘zigarre,’ _baibift_ for ‘bleistift,’ -_autobobil_ (Meringer),[18] _fotofafieren_ (Stern), _ambam_ for -‘armband,’ _dan_ for ‘dame,’ _pap_ for ‘patte’ (Ronjat). I have given -many Danish examples in my Danish book. Grammont’s child (see _Mélanges -linguistiques offerts à A. Meillet_, 1902) carried through these -changes in a most systematic way. - - -V.--§ 6. Correction. - -The time comes when the child corrects his mistakes--where it said -‘tat’ it now says ‘cat.’ Here there are two possibilities which both -seem to occur in actual life. One is that the child hears the correct -sound some time before he is able to imitate it correctly; he will thus -still say _t_ for _k_, though he may in some way object to other people -saying ‘tum’ for ‘come.’ Passy relates how a little French girl would -say _tosson_ both for _garçon_ and _cochon_; but she protested when -anybody else said “C’est un petit cochon” in speaking about a boy, or -vice versa. Such a child, as soon as it can produce the new sound, puts -it correctly into all the places where it is required. This, I take it, -is the ordinary procedure. Frans (my own boy) could not pronounce _h_ -and said _an_, _on_ for the Danish pronouns _han_, _hun_; but when he -began to pronounce this sound, he never misplaced it (2.4). - -The other possibility is that the child learns how to pronounce the -new sound at a time when its own acoustic impression is not yet quite -settled; in that case there will be a period during which his use of -the new sound is uncertain and fluctuating. When parents are in too -great a hurry to get a child out of some false pronunciation, they may -succeed in giving it a new sound, but the child will tend to introduce -it in places where it does not belong. On the whole, it seems therefore -the safest plan to leave it to the child itself to discover that its -sound is not the correct one. - -Sometimes a child will acquire a sound or a sound combination correctly -and then lose it till it reappears a few months later. In an English -family where there was no question of the influence of _h_-less -servants, each child in succession passed through an _h_-less period, -and one of the children, after pronouncing _h_ correctly, lost the -use of it altogether for two or three months. I have had similar -experiences with Danish children. S. L. (ab. 2) said ‘bontin’ for -_bonnet_; but five months earlier she had said _bonnet_ correctly. - -The path to perfection is not always a straight one. Tony E. in order -to arrive at the correct pronunciation of _please_ passed through the -following stages: (1) [bi·], (2) [bli·], (3) [pi·z], (4) [pwi·ʒ], (5) -[beisk, meis, mais] and several other impossible forms. Tracy (p. 139) -gives the following forms through which the boy A. (1.5) had to pass -before being able to say _pussy_: _pooheh_, _poofie_, _poopoohie_, -_poofee_. A French child had four forms [mèni, pèti, mèti, mèsi] before -being able to say _merci_ correctly (Grammont). A Danish child passed -through _bejab_ and _vamb_ before pronouncing _svamp_ (‘sponge’), etc. - -It is certain that all this while the little brain is working, and even -consciously working, though at first it has not sufficient command of -speech to say anything about it. Meringer says that children do not -practise, but that their new acquisitions of sounds happen at once -without any visible preparation. He may be right in the main with -regard to the learning of single sounds, though even there I incline -to doubt the possibility of a universal rule; but Ronjat (p. 55) is -certainly right as against Meringer with regard to the way in which -children learn new and difficult combinations. Here they certainly -do practise, and are proudly conscious of the happy results of their -efforts. When Frans (2.11) mastered the combination _fl_, he was -very proud, and asked his mother: “Mother, can you say _flyve_?”; -then he came to me and told me that he could say _bluse_ and _flue_, -and when asked whether he could say _blad_, he answered: “No, not -yet; Frans cannot say _b-lad_” (with a little interval between the -_b_ and the _l_). Five weeks later he said: “Mother, won’t you play -upon the _klaver_ (piano)?” and after a little while, “Frans can say -_kla_ so well.” About the same time he first mispronounced the word -_manchetter_, and then (when I asked what he was saying, without -telling him that anything was wrong) he gave it the correct sound, and -I heard him afterwards in the adjoining room repeat the word to himself -in a whisper. - -How well children observe sounds is again seen by the way in which they -will correct their elders if they give a pronunciation to which they -are not accustomed--for instance, in a verse they have learnt by heart. -Beth M (2.6) was never satisfied with her parents’ pronunciation of -“What will you buy me when you get there?” She always insisted on their -gabbling the first words as quickly as they could and then coming out -with an emphatic _there_. - - -V.--§ 7. Tone. - -As to the differences in the tone of a voice, even a baby shows by his -expression that he can distinguish clearly between what is said to him -lovingly and what sharply, a long time before he understands a single -word of what is said. Many children are able at a very early age to -hit off the exact note in which something is said or sung. Here is a -story of a boy of more advanced age. In Copenhagen he had had his hair -cut by a Swedish lady and did not like it. When he travelled with his -mother to Norway, as soon as he entered the house, he broke out with -a scream: “Mother, I hope I’m not going to have my hair cut?” He had -noticed the Norwegian intonation, which is very like the Swedish, and -it brought an unpleasant association of ideas. - -FOOTNOTES: - -[17] In this book the age of a child is indicated by stating the number -of years and months completed: 1.6 thus means “in the seventh month of -the second year,” etc. - -[18] An American child said _autonobile_ [ɔtənobi·l] with partial -assimilation of _m_ to the point-stop _t_. - - - - -CHAPTER VI - -WORDS - - § 1. Introductory. § 2. First Period. § 3. Father and Mother. § - 4. The Delimitation of Meaning. § 5. Numerals. Time. § 6. Various - Difficulties. § 7. Shifters. § 8. Extent of Vocabulary. § 9. Summary. - - -VI.--§ 1. Introductory. - -In the preceding chapter, in order to simplify matters, we have -dealt with sounds only, as if they were learnt by themselves and -independently of the meanings attached to them. But that, of course, -is only an abstraction: to the child, as well as to the grown-up, the -two elements, the outer, phonetic element, and the inner element, the -meaning, of a word are indissolubly connected, and the child has no -interest, or very little interest, in trying to imitate the sounds of -its parents except just in so far as these mean something. That words -have a meaning, the child will begin to perceive at a very early age. -Parents may of course deceive themselves and attribute to the child -a more complete and exact understanding of speech than the child is -capable of. That the child looks at its father when it hears the word -‘father,’ may mean at first nothing more than that it follows its -mother’s glance; but naturally in this way it is prepared for actually -associating the idea of ‘father’ with the sound. If the child learns -the feat of lifting its arms when it is asked “How big is the boy?” -it is not to be supposed that the single words of the sentence are -understood, or that the child has any conception of size; he only knows -that when this series of sounds is said he is admired if he lifts his -arms up: and so the sentence as a whole has the effect of a word of -command. A dog has the same degree of understanding. Hilary M. (1.0), -when you said to her at any time the refrain “He greeted me so,” from -“Here come three knights from Spain,” would bow and salute with her -hand, as she had seen some children doing it when practising the song. - -The understanding of what is said always precedes the power of saying -the same thing oneself--often precedes it for an extraordinarily long -time. One father notes that his little daughter of a year and seven -months brings what is wanted and understands questions while she cannot -say a word. It often happens that parents some fine day come to regret -what they have said in the presence of a child without suspecting how -much it understands. “Little pitchers have long ears.” - -One can, however, easily err in regard to the range and certainty of a -child’s understanding. The Swiss philologist Tappolet noticed that his -child of six months, when he said “Where is the window?” made vague -movements towards the window. He made the experiment of repeating his -question in French--with the same intonation as in German, and the -child acted just as it had done before. It is, properly speaking, only -when the child begins to talk that we can be at all sure what it has -really understood, and even then it may at times be difficult to sound -the depths of the child’s conception. - -The child’s acquisition of the meaning of words is truly a highly -complicated affair. How many things are comprehended under one word? -The answer is not easy in all cases. The single Danish word _tæppe_ -covers all that is expressed in English by carpet, rug, blanket, -counterpane, curtain (theatrical). And there is still more complication -when we come to abstract ideas. The child has somehow to find out for -himself with regard to his own language what ideas are considered -to hang together and so come under the same word. He hears the word -‘chair’ applied to a particular chair, then to another chair that -perhaps looks to him totally different, and again to a third: and it -becomes his business to group these together. - -What Stern tells about his own boy is certainly exceptional, perhaps -unique. The boy ran to a door and said _das?_ (‘That?’--his way of -asking the name of a thing). They told him ‘tür.’ He then went to two -other doors in the room, and each time the performance was repeated. He -then did the same with the seven chairs in the room. Stern says, “As -he thus makes sure that the objects that are alike to his eye and to -his sense of touch have also the same name, he is on his way to general -conceptions.” We should, however, be wary of attributing general ideas -to little children. - - -VI.--§ 2. First Period. - -In the first period we meet the same phenomena in the child’s -acquisition of word-meanings that we found in his acquisition -of sounds. A child develops conceptions of his own which are as -unintelligible and strange to the uninitiated as his sounds. - -Among the child’s first passions are animals and pictures of animals, -but for a certain time it is quite arbitrary what animals are classed -together under a particular name. A child of nine months noticed -that his grandfather’s dog said ‘bow-wow’ and fancied that anything -not human could say (and therefore should be called) _bow-wow_--pigs -and horses included. A little girl of two called a horse _he_ (Danish -_hest_) and divided the animal kingdom into two groups, (1) horses, -including all four-footed things, even a tortoise, and (2) fishes -(pronounced _iz_), including all that moved without use of feet, for -example, birds and flies. A boy of 1.8 saw a picture of a Danish priest -in a ruff and was told that it was a _præst_, which he rendered as -_bæp_. Afterwards seeing a picture of an aunt with a white collar which -recalled the priest’s ruff, he said again _bæp_, and this remained the -name of the aunt, and even of another aunt, who was called ‘other bæp.’ -These transferences are sometimes extraordinary. A boy who had had a -pig drawn for him, the pig being called _öf_, at the age of 1.6 used -_öf_ (1) for a pig, (2) for drawing a pig, (3) for writing in general. - -Such transferences may seem very absurd, but are not more so than -some transferences occurring in the language of grown-up persons. The -word _Tripos_ passed from the sense of a three-legged stool to the -man who sat on a three-legged stool to dispute with candidates for -degrees at Cambridge. Then, as it was the duty of Mr. Tripos also to -provide comic verses, these were called tripos verses, such verses -being printed under that name till very near the end of the nineteenth -century, though Mr. Tripos himself had disappeared long ago. And as -the examination list was printed on the back of these verses, it was -called the Tripos list, and it was no far cry to saying of a successful -candidate, “he stands high on the Tripos,” which now came to mean the -examination itself. - -But to return to the classifications in the minds of the children. -Hilary M. (1.6 to 2.0) used the word _daisy_ (1) of the flower itself, -(2) of any flower, (3) of any conventional flower in a pattern, (4) of -any pattern. One of the first words she said was _colour_ (1.4), and -she got into a way of saying it when anything striking attracted her -attention. Originally she heard the word of a bright patch of colour -in a picture. The word was still in use at the age of two. For some -months anything that moved was a _fly_, every man was a _soldier_, -everybody that was not a man was a _baby_. S. L. (1.8) used _bing_ -(1) for a door, (2) for bricks or building with bricks. The connexion -is through the bang of a door or a tumbling castle of bricks, but -the name was transferred to the objects. It is curious that at 1.3 -she had the word _bang_ for anything dropped, but not _bing_; at 1.8 -she had both, _bing_ being specialized as above. From books about -children’s language I quote two illustrations. Ronjat’s son used the -word _papement_, which stands for ‘kaffemensch,’ in speaking about the -grocer’s boy who brought coffee; but as he had a kind of uniform with -a flat cap, _papement_ was also used of German and Russian officers in -the illustrated papers. Hilde Stern (1.9) used _bichu_ for drawer or -chest of drawers; it originated in the word _bücher_ (books), which was -said when her picture-books were taken out of the drawer. - -A warning is, however, necessary. When a grown-up person says that a -child uses the same word to denote various things, he is apt to assume -that the child gives a word two or three definite meanings, as _he_ -does. The process is rather in this way. A child has got a new toy, a -horse, and at the same time has heard its elders use the word ‘horse,’ -which it has imitated as well as it can. It now associates the word -with the delight of playing with its toy. If the next day it says the -same sound, and its friends give it the horse, the child gains the -experience that the sound brings the fulfilment of its wish: but if -it sets its eye on a china cow and utters the same sound, the father -takes note that the sound also denotes a cow, while for the child it is -perhaps a mere experiment--“Could not I get my wish for that nice thing -fulfilled in the same way?” If it succeeds, the experiment may very -well be repeated, and the more or less faulty imitation of the word -‘horse’ thus by the co-operation of those around it may become also -firmly attached to ‘cow.’ - -When Elsa B. (1.10), on seeing the stopper of a bottle in the garden, -came out with the word ‘beer,’ it would be rash to conclude (as her -father did) that the word ‘beer’ to her meant a ‘stopper’: all we know -is that her thoughts had taken that direction, and that some time -before, on seeing a stopper, she had heard the word ‘beer.’ - -Parents sometimes unconsciously lead a child into error about the use -of words. A little nephew of mine asked to taste his father’s beer, and -when refused made so much to-do that the father said, “Come, let us -have peace in the house.” Next day, under the same circumstances, the -boy asked for ‘peace in the house,’ and this became the family name for -beer. Not infrequently what is said on certain occasions is taken by -the child to be the _name_ of some object concerned; thus a sniff or -some sound imitating it may come to mean a flower, and ‘hurrah’ a flag. -S. L. from an early age was fond of flowers, and at 1.8 used ‘pretty’ -or ‘pretty-pretty’ as a substantive instead of the word ‘flower,’ which -she learnt at 1.10. - -I may mention here that analogous mistakes may occur when missionaries -or others write down words from foreign languages with which they are -not familiar. In the oldest list of Greenlandic words (of 1587) there -is thus a word _panygmah_ given with the signification ‘needle’; as a -matter of fact it means ‘my daughter’s’: the Englishman pointed at the -needle, but the Eskimo thought he wanted to know whom it belonged to. -In an old list of words in the now extinct Polabian language we find -“_scumbe_, yesterday, _subuda_, to-day, _janidiglia_, to-morrow”: the -questions were put on a Saturday, and the Slav answered accordingly, -for _subuta_ (the same word as Sabbath) means Saturday, _skumpe_ -‘fasting-day,’ and _ja nedila_ ‘it is Sunday.’ - -According to O’Shea (p. 131) “a child was greatly impressed with the -horns of a buck the first time he saw him. The father used the term -‘sheep’ several times while the creature was being inspected, and it -was discovered afterwards that the child had made the association -between the word and the animal’s horns, so now _sheep_ signifies -primarily horns, whether seen in pictures or in real life.” It is clear -that mistakes of that kind will happen more readily if the word is -said singly than when it is embodied in whole connected sentences: the -latter method is on the whole preferable for many reasons. - - -VI.--§ 3. Father and Mother. - -A child is often faced by some linguistic usage which obliges him again -and again to change his notions, widen them, narrow them, till he -succeeds in giving words the same range of meaning that his elders give -them. - -Frequently, perhaps most frequently, a word is at first for the child -a proper name. ‘Wood’ means not a wood in general, but the particular -picture which has been pointed out to the child in the dining-room. -The little girl who calls her mother’s black muff ‘muff,’ but refuses -to transfer the word to her own white one, is at the same stage. -Naturally, then, the word _father_ when first heard is a proper name, -the name of the child’s own father. But soon it must be extended to -other individuals who have something or other in common with the -child’s father. One child will use it of all _men_, another perhaps of -all men with beards, while ‘lady’ is applied to all pictures of faces -without beards; a third will apply the word to father, mother and -grandfather. When the child itself applies the word to another man it -is soon corrected, but at the same time it cannot avoid hearing another -child call a strange man ‘father’ or getting to know that the gardener -is Jack’s ‘father,’ etc. The word then comes to mean to the child ‘a -grown-up person who goes with or belongs to a little one,’ and he will -say, “See, there goes a dog with his father.” Or, he comes to know -that the cat is the kittens’ father, and the dog the puppies’ father, -and next day asks, “Wasps, are they the flies’ father, or are they -perhaps their mother?” (as Frans did, 4.10). Finally, by such guessing -and drawing conclusions he gains full understanding of the word, and is -ready to make acquaintance later with its more remote applications, as -‘The King is the father of his people; Father O’Flynn; Boyle was the -father of chemistry,’ etc. - -Difficulties are caused to the child when its father puts himself on -the child’s plane and calls his wife ‘mother’ just as he calls his own -mother ‘mother,’ though at other moments the child hears him call her -‘grandmother’ or ‘grannie.’ Professor Sturtevant writes to me that a -neighbour child, a girl of about five years, called out to him, “I saw -your girl and your mother,” meaning ‘your daughter and your wife.’ -In many families the words ‘sister’ (‘Sissie’) or ‘brother’ are used -constantly instead of his or her real name. Here we see the reason why -so often such names of relations change their meaning in the history of -languages; G. _vetter_ probably at first meant ‘father’s brother,’ as -it corresponds to Latin _patruus_; G. _base_, from ‘father’s sister,’ -came to mean also ‘mother’s sister,’ ‘niece’ and ‘cousin.’ The word -that corresponds etymologically to our _mother_ has come to mean ‘wife’ -or ‘woman’ in Lithuanian and ‘sister’ in Albanian. - -The same extension that we saw in the case of ‘father’ now may take -place with real proper names. Tony E. (3.5), when a fresh charwoman -came, told his mother not to have _this Mary_: the last charwoman’s -name was Mary.[19] In exactly the same way a Danish child applied -the name of their servant, Ingeborg, as a general word for servant: -“Auntie’s Ingeborg is called Ann,” etc., and a German girl said _viele -Augusten_ for ‘many girls.’ This, of course, is the way in which _doll_ -has come to mean a ‘toy baby,’ and we use the same extension when we -say of a statesman that he is no _Bismarck_, etc. - - -VI.--§ 4. The Delimitation of Meaning. - -The association of a word with its meaning is accomplished for the -child by a series of single incidents, and as many words are understood -only by the help of the situation, it is natural that the exact force -of many of them is not seized at once. A boy of 4.10, hearing that his -father had seen the King, inquired, “Has he a head at both ends?”--his -conception of a king being derived from playing-cards. Another child -was born on what the Danes call Constitution Day, the consequence being -that he confused birthday and Constitution Day, and would speak of “my -Constitution Day,” and then his brother and sister also began to talk -of their Constitution Day. - -Hilary M. (2.0) and Murdoch D. (2.6) used _dinner_, _breakfast_ and -_tea_ interchangeably--the words might be translated ‘meal.’ Other more -or less similar confusions may be mentioned here. Tony F. (2.8) used -the term _sing_ for (1) reading, (2) singing, (3) any game in which -his elders amused him. Hilary said indifferently, ‘Daddy, _sing_ a -story three bears,’ and ‘Daddy, _tell_ a story three bears.’ She cannot -remember which is _knife_ and which is _fork_. Beth M. (2.6) always -used _can’t_ when she meant _won’t_. It meant simply refusal to do what -she did not want to. - - -VI.--§ 5. Numerals. Time. - -It is interesting to watch the way in which arithmetical notions grow -in extent and clearness. Many children learn very early to say _one_, -_two_, which is often said to them when they learn how to walk; but -no ideas are associated with these syllables. In the same way many -children are drilled to say _three_ when the parents begin with _one_, -_two_, etc. The idea of plurality is gradually developed, but a child -may very well answer _two_ when asked how many fingers papa has; Frans -used the combinations _some-two_ and _some-three_ to express ‘more -than one’ (2.4). At the age of 2.11 he was very fond of counting, but -while he always got the first four numbers right, he would skip over -5 and 7; and when asked to count the apples in a bowl, he would say -rapidly 1-2-3-4, even if there were only three, or stop at 3, even -if there were five or more. At 3.4 he counted objects as far as 10 -correctly, but might easily pass from 11 to 13, and if the things to -be counted were not placed in a row he was apt to bungle by moving his -fingers irregularly from one to another. When he was 3.8 he answered -the question “What do 2 and 2 make?” quite correctly, but next day to -the same question he answered “Three,” though in a doubtful tone of -voice. This was in the spring, and next month I noted: “His sense of -number is evidently weaker than it was: the open-air life makes him -forget this as well as all the verses he knew by heart in the winter.” -When the next winter came his counting exercises again amused him, but -at first he was in a fix as before about any numbers after 6, although -he could repeat the numbers till 10 without a mistake. He was fond of -doing sums, and had initiated this game himself by asking: “Mother, if -I have two apples and get one more, haven’t I then three?” His sense of -numbers was so abstract that he was caught by a tricky question: “If -you have two eyes and one nose, how many ears have you?” He answered at -once, “Three!” A child thus seems to think in abstract numbers, and as -he learns his numbers as 1, 2, 3, 4, etc., not as one pear, two pears, -three pears, one may well be skeptical about the justification for the -recommendation made by many pedagogues that at an early stage of the -school-life a child should learn to reckon with concrete things rather -than with abstract numbers. - -A child will usually be familiar with the sound of higher numerals long -before it has any clear notion of what they mean. Frans (3.6) said, -“They are coming by a train that is called four thirty-four,” and (4.4) -he asked, “How much is twice hundred? Is that a thousand?” - -A child’s ideas of time are necessarily extremely vague to begin -with; it cannot connect very clear or very definite notions with the -expressions it constantly hears others employ, such as ‘last Sunday,’ -‘a week ago,’ or ‘next year.’ The other day I heard a little girl say: -“This is where we sat _next time_,” evidently meaning ‘last time.’ All -observers of children mention the frequent confusion of words like -_to-morrow_ and _yesterday_, and the linguist remembers that Gothic -_gistradagis_ means ‘to-morrow,’ though it corresponds formally with E. -_yesterday_ and G. _gestern_. - - -VI.--§ 6. Various Difficulties. - -Very small children will often say _up_ both when they want to be taken -up and when they want to be put down on the floor. This generally -means nothing else than that they have not yet learnt the word _down_, -and _up_ to them simply is a means to obtain a change of position. In -the same way a German child used _hut auf_ for having the hat taken -off as well as put on, but Meumann rightly interprets this as an -undifferentiated desire to have something happen with the hat. But even -with somewhat more advanced children there are curious confusions. - -Hilary M. (2.0) is completely baffled by words of opposite meaning. She -will say, “Daddy, my pinny is too _hot_; I must warm it at the fire.” -She goes to the fire and comes back, saying, “That’s better; it’s quite -_cool_ now.” (The same confusion of _hot_ and _cold_ was also reported -in the case of one Danish and one German child; cf. also Tracy, p. -134.) One morning while dressing she said, “What a _nice_ windy day,” -and an hour or two later, before she had been out, “What a _nasty_ -windy day.” She confuses _good_ and _naughty_ completely. Tony F. (2.5) -says, “Turn the _dark_ out.” - -Sometimes a mere accidental likeness may prove too much for the child. -When Hilary M. had a new doll (2.0) her mother said to her: “And is -that your _son_?” Hilary was puzzled, and looking out of the window at -the sun, said: “No, that’s my sun.” It was very difficult to set her -out of this confusion.[20] Her sister Beth (3.8), looking at a sunset, -said: “That’s what you call a _sunset_; where Ireland (her sister) is -(at school) it’s a _summerset_.” About the same time, when staying at -_Longwood Farm_, she said: “I suppose if the trees were cut down it -would be _Shortwood Farm_?” - -An English friend writes to me: “I misunderstood the text, ‘And there -fell from his eyes as it were scales,’ as I knew the word _scales_ only -in the sense ‘balances.’ The phenomenon seemed to me a strange one, but -I did not question that it occurred, any more than I questioned other -strange phenomena recounted in the Bible. In the lines of the hymn-- - - Teach me to live that I may dread - The grave as little as my bed-- - -I supposed that the words ‘as little as my bed’ were descriptive of my -future grave, and that it was my duty according to the hymn to fear the -grave.” - -Words with several meanings may cause children much difficulty. A -Somerset child said, “Moses was not a good boy, and his mother smacked -’un and smacked ’un and smacked ’un till she couldn’t do it no more, -and then she put ’un in the ark of bulrushes.” This puzzled the teacher -till he looked at the passage in Exodus: “And when she could _hide_ -him no longer, she laid him in an ark of bulrushes.” Here, of course, -we have technically two different words _hide_; but to the child the -difficulty is practically as great where we have what is called one -and the same word with two distinct meanings, or when a word is used -figuratively. - -The word ‘child’ means two different things, which in some languages -are expressed by two distinct words. I remember my own astonishment at -the age of nine when I heard my godmother talk of her children. “But -you have no children.” “Yes, Clara and Eliza.” I knew them, of course, -but they were grown up. - -Take again the word _old_. A boy knew that he was three years, but -could not be induced to say ‘three years old’; no, he is three years -new, and his father too is new, as distinct from his grandmother, who -he knows is old. A child asked, “Why have _grand_ dukes and _grand_ -pianos got the same name?” (Glenconner, p. 21). - -When Frans was told (4.4) “Your eyes are running,” he was much -astonished, and asked, “Are they running away?” - -Sometimes a child knows a word first in some secondary sense. When a -country child first came to Copenhagen and saw a soldier, he said, -“There is a tin-soldier” (2.0). Stern has a story about his daughter -who was taken to the country and wished to pat the backs of the pigs, -but was checked with the words, “Pigs always lie in dirt,” when she was -suddenly struck with a new idea; “Ah, that is why they are called pigs, -because they are so dirty: but what would people call them if they -didn’t lie in the dirt?” History repeats itself: only the other day a -teacher wrote to me that one of his pupils had begun his essay with the -words: “Pigs are rightly called thus, for they are such swine.” - -Words of similar sound are apt to be confused. Some children have had -trouble till mature years with _soldier_ and _shoulder_, _hassock_ -and _cassock_, _diary_ and _dairy_. Lady Glenconner writes: “They -almost invariably say ‘lemon’ [for melon], and if they make an effort -to be more correct they still mispronounce it. ‘Don’t say melling.’ -‘Very well, then, mellum.’” Among other confusions mentioned in her -book I may quote _Portugal_ for ‘purgatory,’ King Solomon’s three -hundred _Columbines_, David and his great friend _Johnson_, Cain and -_Mabel_--all of them showing how words from spheres beyond the ordinary -ken of children are assimilated to more familiar ones. - -Schuchardt has a story of a little coloured boy in the West Indies who -said, “It’s _three_ hot in this room”: he had heard _too_ = _two_ and -literally wanted to ‘go one better.’ According to Mr. James Payne, -a boy for years substituted for the words ‘_Hallowed_ be Thy name’ -‘_Harold_ be Thy name.’ Many children imagine that there is a _pole_ to -mark where the North Pole is, and even (like Helen Keller) that polar -bears climb the Pole. - -This leads us naturally to what linguists call ‘popular -etymology’--which is very frequent with children in all countries. I -give a few examples from books. A four-year-old boy had heard several -times about his nurse’s _neuralgia_, and finally said: “I don’t think -it’s _new_ ralgia, I call it old ralgia.” In this way _anchovies_ are -made into _hamchovies_, _whirlwind_ into _worldwind_, and _holiday_ -into _hollorday_, a day to holloa. Professor Sturtevant writes: -A boy of six or seven had frequently had his ear irrigated; when -similar treatment was applied to his nose, he said that he had been -‘nosigated’--he had evidently given his own interpretation to the first -syllable of _irrigate_. - -There is an element of ‘popular etymology’ in the following joke which -was made by one of the Glenconner children when four years old: “I -suppose you wag along in the _wagonette_, the _landau_ lands you at the -door, and you sweep off in the _brougham_” (pronounced broom). - - -VI.--§ 7. Shifters. - -A class of words which presents grave difficulty to children are -those whose meaning differs according to the situation, so that the -child hears them now applied to one thing and now to another. That -was the case with words like ‘father,’ and ‘mother.’ Another such -word is ‘enemy.’ When Frans (4.5) played a war-game with Eggert, he -could not get it into his head that he was Eggert’s enemy: no, it was -only Eggert who was the enemy. A stronger case still is ‘home.’ When -a child was asked if his grandmother had been at home, and answered: -“No, grandmother was at grandfather’s,” it is clear that for him ‘at -home’ meant merely ‘at my home.’ Such words may be called shifters. -When Frans (3.6) heard it said that ‘the one’ (glove) was as good as -‘the other,’ he asked, “Which is the one, and which is the other?”--a -question not easy to answer. - -The most important class of shifters are the personal pronouns. The -child hears the word ‘I’ meaning ‘Father,’ then again meaning ‘Mother,’ -then again ‘Uncle Peter,’ and so on unendingly in the most confusing -manner. Many people realize the difficulty thus presented to the child, -and to obviate it will speak of themselves in the third person as -‘Father’ or ‘Grannie’ or ‘Mary,’ and instead of saying ‘you’ to the -child, speak of it by its name. The child’s understanding of what is -said is thus facilitated for the moment: but on the other hand the -child in this way hears these little words less frequently and is -slower in mastering them. - -If some children soon learn to say ‘I’ while others speak of themselves -by their name, the difference is not entirely due to the different -mental powers of the children, but must be largely attributed to their -elders’ habit of addressing them by their name or by the pronouns. -But Germans would not be Germans, and philosophers would not be -philosophers, if they did not make the most of the child’s use of ‘I,’ -in which they see the first sign of self-consciousness. The elder -Fichte, we are told, used to celebrate not his son’s birthday, but the -day on which he first spoke of himself as ‘I.’ The sober truth is, I -take it, that a boy who speaks of himself as ‘Jack’ can have just as -full and strong a perception of himself as opposed to the rest of the -world as one who has learnt the little linguistic trick of saying ‘I.’ -But this does not suit some of the great psychologists, as seen from -the following quotation: “The child uses no pronouns; it speaks of -itself in the third person, because it has no idea of its ‘I’ (Ego) nor -of its ‘Not-I,’ because it knows nothing of itself nor of others.” - -It is not an uncommon case of confusion for a child to use ‘you’ and -‘your’ instead of ‘I,’ ‘me,’ and ‘mine.’ The child has noticed that -‘will you have?’ means ‘will Jack have?’ so that he looks on ‘you’ -as synonymous with his own name. In some children this confusion may -last for some months. It is in some cases connected with an inverted -word-order, ‘do you’ meaning ‘I do’--an instance of ‘echoism’ (see -below). Sometimes he will introduce a further complication by using -the personal pronoun of the third person, as though he had started -the sentence with ‘Jack’--then ‘you have his coat’ means ‘I have my -coat.’ He may even speak of the person addressed as ‘I.’ ‘Will I tell -a story?’ = ‘Will you tell a story?’ Frans was liable to use these -confused forms between the ages of two and two and a-half, and I had to -quicken his acquaintance with the right usage by refusing to understand -him when he used the wrong. Beth M. (2.6) was very jealous about her -elder sister touching any of her property, and if the latter sat on her -chair, she would shriek out: “That’s _your_ chair; that’s _your_ chair.” - -The forms _I_ and _me_ are a common source of difficulty to English -children. Both Tony E. (2.7 to 3.0) and Hilary M. (2.0) use _my_ for -_me_; it is apparently a kind of blending of _me_ and _I_; e.g. “Give -Hilary medicine, make _my_ better,” “Maggy is looking at _my_,” “Give -it _my_.” See also O’Shea, p. 81: ‘_my_ want to do this or that; _my_ -feel bad; that is _my_ pencil; take _my_ to bed.’ - -_His_ and _her_ are difficult to distinguish: “An ill lady, _his_ legs -were bad” (Tony E., 3.3). - -C. M. L. (about the end of her second year) constantly used _wour_ and -_wours_ for _our_ and _ours_, the connexion being with _we_, as ‘your’ -with _you_. In exactly the same way many Danish children say _vos_ -for _os_ on account of _vi_. But all this really falls under our next -chapter. - - -VI.--§ 8. Extent of Vocabulary. - -The number of words which the child has at command is constantly -increasing, but not uniformly, as the increase is affected by the -child’s health and the new experiences which life presents to him. In -the beginning it is tolerably easy to count the words the child uses; -later it becomes more difficult, as there are times when his command -of speech grows with astonishing rapidity. There is great difference -between individual children. Statistics have often been given of the -extent of a child’s vocabulary at different ages, or of the results of -comparing the vocabularies of a number of children. - -An American child who was closely observed by his mother, Mrs. -Winfield S. Hall, had in the tenth month 3 words, in the eleventh -12, in the twelfth 24, in the thirteenth 38, in the fourteenth 48, -in the fifteenth 106, in the sixteenth 199, and in the seventeenth -232 words (_Child Study Monthly_, March 1897). During the first month -after the same boy was six years old, slips of paper and pencils were -distributed over the house and practically everything which the child -said was written down. After two or three days these were collected and -the words were put under their respective letters in a book kept for -that purpose. New sets of papers were put in their places and other -lists made. In addition to this, the record of his life during the -past year was examined and all of his words not already listed were -added. In this way his summer vocabulary was obtained; conversations -on certain topics were also introduced to give him an opportunity to -use words relating to such topics. The list is printed in the _Journal -of Childhood and Adolescence_, January 1902, and is well worth looking -through. It contains 2,688 words, apart from proper names and numerals. -No doubt the child was really in command of words beyond that total. - -This list perhaps is exceptional on account of the care with which it -was compiled, but as a rule I am afraid that it is not wise to attach -much importance to these tables of statistics. One is generally left -in the dark whether the words counted are those that the child has -understood, or those that it has actually used--two entirely different -things. The passive or receptive knowledge of a language always goes -far beyond the active or productive. - -One also gets the impression that the observers have often counted -up words without realizing the difficulties involved. What is to be -counted as a word? Are _I_, _me_, _we_, _us_ one word or four? Is -_teacup_ a new word for a child who already knows _tea_ and _cup_? And -so for all compounds. Is _box_ (= a place at a theatre) the same word -as _box_ (= workbox)? Are the two _thats_ in ‘that man that you see’ -two words or one? It is clear that the process of counting involves so -much that is arbitrary and uncertain that very little can be built on -the statistics arrived at. - -It is more interesting perhaps to determine what words at a given age a -child does _not_ know, or rather does not understand when he hears them -or when they occur in his reading. I have myself collected such lists, -and others have been given me by teachers, who have been astonished at -words which their classes did not understand. A teacher can never be -too cautious about assuming linguistic knowledge in his pupils--and -this applies not only to foreign words, about which all teachers are -on the alert, but also to what seem to be quite everyday words of the -language of the country. - -In connexion with the growth of vocabulary one may ask how many -words are possessed by the average grown-up man? Max Müller in his -_Lectures_ stated on the authority of an English clergyman that an -English farm labourer has only about three hundred words at command. -This is the most utter balderdash, but nevertheless it has often been -repeated, even by such an authority on psychology as Wundt. A Danish -boy can easily learn seven hundred English words in the first year -of his study of the language--and are we to believe that a grown -Englishman, even of the lowest class, has no greater stock than such a -beginner? If you go through the list of 2,000 to 3,000 words used by -the American boy of six referred to above, you will easily convince -yourself that they would far from suffice for the rudest labourer. A -Swedish dialectologist, after a minute investigation, found that the -vocabulary of Swedish peasants amounted to at least 26,000 words, and -his view has been confirmed by other investigators. This conclusion is -not invalidated by the fact that Shakespeare in his works uses only -about 20,000 words and Milton in his poems only about 8,000. It is easy -to see what a vast number of words of daily life are seldom or never -required by a poet, especially a poet like Milton, whose works are on -elevated subjects. The words used by Zola or Kipling or Jack London -would no doubt far exceed those used by Shakespeare and Milton.[21] - - -VI.--§ 9. Summary. - -To sum up, then. There are only very few words that are explained to -the child, and so long as it is quite small it will not even understand -the explanations that might be given. Some it learns because, when the -word is used, the object is at the same time pointed at, but most words -it can only learn by drawing conclusions about their meaning from the -situation in which they arise or from the context in which they are -used. These conclusions, however, are very uncertain, or they may be -correct for the particular occasion and not hold good on some other, to -the child’s mind quite similar, occasion. Grown-up people are in the -same position with regard to words they do not know, but which they -come across in a book or newspaper, e.g. _demise_. The meanings of many -words are at the same time extraordinarily vague and yet so strictly -limited (at least in some respects) that the least deviation is felt as -a mistake. Moreover, the child often learns a secondary or figurative -meaning of a word before its simple meaning. But gradually a high -degree of accuracy is obtained, the fittest meanings surviving--that is -(in this connexion) those that agree best with those of the surrounding -society. And thus the individual is merged in society, and the social -character of language asserts itself through the elimination of -everything that is the exclusive property of one person only. - -FOOTNOTES: - -[19] Cf. Beach-la-Mar, below, Ch. XII § 1. - -[20] Cf. below on the disappearance of the word _son_ because it sounds -like _sun_ (Ch. XV. § 7). - -[21] Cf. the fuller treatment of this question in GS ch. ix. - - - - -CHAPTER VII - -GRAMMAR - - § 1. Introductory. § 2. Substantives and Adjectives. § 3. Verbs. § 4. - Degrees of Consciousness. § 5. Word-formation. § 6. Word-division. - § 7. Sentences. § 8. Negation and Question. § 9. Prepositions and - Idioms. - - -VII.--§ 1. Introductory. - -To learn a language it is not enough to know so many words. They -must be connected according to the particular laws of the particular -language. No one tells the child that the plural of ‘hand’ is _hands_, -of ‘foot’ _feet_, of ‘man’ _men_, or that the past of ‘am’ is _was_, -of ‘love’ _loved_; it is not informed when to say _he_ and when _him_, -or in what order words must stand. How can the little fellow learn all -this, which when set forth in a grammar fills many pages and can only -be explained by help of many learned words? - -Many people will say it comes by ‘instinct,’ as if ‘instinct’ were not -one of those fine words which are chiefly used to cover over what is -not understood, because it says so precious little and seems to say so -precious much. But when other people, using a more everyday expression, -say that it all ‘comes quite of itself,’ I must strongly demur: so far -is it from ‘coming of itself’ that it demands extraordinary labour on -the child’s part. The countless grammatical mistakes made by a child -in its early years are a tell-tale proof of the difficulty which this -side of language presents to him--especially, of course, on account of -the unsystematic character of our flexions and the irregularity of its -so-called ‘rules’ of syntax. - -At first each word has only one form for the child, but he soon -discovers that grown-up people use many forms which resemble one -another in different connexions, and he gets a sense of the purport of -these forms, so as to be able to imitate them himself or even develop -similar forms of his own. These latter forms are what linguists call -analogy-formations: by analogy with ‘Jack’s hat’ and ‘father’s hat’ the -child invents such as ‘uncle’s hat’ and ‘Charlie’s hat’--and inasmuch -as these forms are ‘correct,’ no one can say on hearing them whether -the child has really invented them or has first heard them used by -others. It is just on account of the fact that the forms developed on -the spur of the moment by each individual are in the vast majority of -instances perfectly identical with those used already by other people, -that the principle of analogy comes to have such paramount importance -in the life of language, for we are all thereby driven to apply it -unhesitatingly to all those instances in which we have no ready-made -form handy: without being conscious of it, each of us thus now and then -really creates something never heard before by us or anybody else. - - -VII.--§ 2. Substantives and Adjectives. - -The _-s_ of the possessive is so regular in English that it is not -difficult for the child to attach it to all words as soon as the -character of the termination has dawned upon him. But at first there -is a time with many children in which words are put together without -change, so that ‘Mother hat’ stands for ‘Mother’s hat’; cf. also -sentences like “Baby want baby milk.” - -After the _s_-form has been learnt, it is occasionally attached to -pronouns, as _you’s_ for ‘your,’ or more rarely _I’s_ or _me’s_ for -‘my.’ - -The _-s_ is now in English added freely to whole groups of words, as -in _the King of England’s power_, where the old construction was _the -King’s power of England_, and in _Beaumont and Fletcher’s plays_ (see -on the historical development of this group genitive my ChE iii.). -In Danish we have exactly the same construction, and Danish children -will very frequently extend it, placing the _-s_ at the end of a whole -interrogative sentence, e.g., ‘Hvem er det da’s?’ (as if in English, -‘Who is it then’s,’ instead of ‘Whose is it then?’). Dr. H. Bradley -once wrote to me: “One of your samples of children’s Danish is an exact -parallel to a bit of child’s English that I noted long ago. My son, -when a little boy, used to say ‘Who is that-’s’ (with a pause before -the _s_) for ‘Whom does that belong to?’” - -Irregular plurals are often regularized, _gooses_ for ‘geese,’ -_tooths_, _knifes_, etc. O’Shea mentions one child who inversely formed -the plural _chieves_ for _chiefs_ on the analogy of _thieves_. - -Sometimes the child becomes acquainted with the plural form first, -and from it forms a singular. I have noticed this several times with -Danish children, who had heard the irregular plural _køer_, ‘cows,’ -and then would say _en kø_ instead of _en ko_ (while others from the -singular _ko_ form a regular plural _koer_). French children will say -_un chevau_ instead of _un cheval_. - -In the comparison of adjectives analogy-formations are frequent with -all children, e.g. _the littlest_, _littler_, _goodest_, _baddest_, -_splendider_, etc. One child is reported as saying _quicklier_, another -as saying _quickerly_, instead of the received _more quickly_. A -curious formation is “P’raps it was John, but _p’rapser_ it was Mary.” - -O’Shea (p. 108) notices a period of transition when the child may use -the analogical form at one moment and the traditional one the next. -Thus S. (4.0) will say _better_ perhaps five times where he says -_gooder_ once, but in times of excitement he will revert to the latter -form. - - -VII.--§ 3. Verbs. - -The child at first tends to treat all verbs on the analogy of _love_, -_loved_, _loved_, or _kiss_, _kissed_, _kissed_, thus _catched_, -_buyed_, _frowed_ for ‘caught, bought, threw or thrown,’ etc., but -gradually it learns the irregular forms, though in the beginning with -a good deal of hesitation and confusion, as _done_ for ‘did,’ _hunged_ -for ‘hung,’ etc. O’Shea gives among other sentences (p. 94): “I -_drunked_ my milk.” “Budd _swunged_ on the rings.” “Grandpa _boughted_ -me a ring.” “I _caughted_ him.” “Aunt Net _camed_ to-day.” “He _gaved_ -it to me”--in all of which the irregular form has been supplemented -with the regular ending. - -A little Danish incident may be thus rendered in English. The child -(4.6): “I have seed a chestnut.” “Where have you seen it?” He: “I seen -it in the garden.” This shows the influence of the form last heard. - -I once heard a French child say “Il a pleuvy” for ‘plu’ from -‘pleuvoir.’ Other analogical forms are _prendu_ for ‘pris’; _assire_ -for ‘asseoir’ (from the participle _assis_), _se taiser_ for ‘se taire’ -(from the frequent injunction _taisez-vous_). Similar formations are -frequent in all countries. - - -VII.--§ 4. Degrees of Consciousness. - -Do the little brains _think_ about these different forms and their -uses? Or is the learning of language performed as unconsciously as -the circulation of the blood or the process of digestion? Clearly -they do not think about grammatical forms in the way pursued in -grammar-lessons, with all the forms of the same word arranged side by -side of one another, with rules and exceptions. Still there is much -to lead us to believe that the thing does not go of itself without -some thinking over. The fact that in later years we speak our language -without knowing how we do it, the right words and phrases coming to -us no one knows how or whence, is no proof that it was always so. We -ride a bicycle without giving a thought to the machine, look around -us, talk with a friend, etc., and yet there was a time when every -movement had to be mastered by slow and painful efforts. There would be -nothing strange in supposing that it is the same with the acquisition -of language. - -Of course, it would be idle to ask children straight out if they -think about these things, and what they think. But now and then one -notices something which shows that at an early age they think about -points of grammar a good deal. When Frans was 2.9, he lay in bed not -knowing that anyone was in the next room, and he was heard to say quite -plainly: “Små hænder hedder det--lille hånd--små hænder--lille hænder, -næ små hænder.” (“They are called small hands--little hand--small -hands--little hands, no, small hands”: in Danish _lille_ is not used -with a plural noun.) Similar things have been related to me by other -parents, one child, for instance, practising plural forms while turning -over the leaves of a picture-book, and another one, who was corrected -for saying _nak_ instead of _nikkede_ (‘nodded’), immediately retorted -“_Stikker stak, nikker nak_,” thus showing on what analogy he had -formed the new preterit. Frequently children, after giving a form which -their own ears tell them is wrong, at once correct it: ‘I sticked it -in--I stuck it in.’ - -A German child, not yet two, said: “Papa, hast du mir was -mitgebringt--gebrungen--gebracht?” almost at a breath (Gabelentz), and -another (2.5) said _hausin_, but then hesitated and added: “Man kann -auch häuser sagen” (Meringer). - - -VII.--§ 5. Word-formation. - -In the forming of words the child’s brain is just as active. In many -cases, again, it will be impossible to distinguish between what the -child has heard and merely copied and what it has itself fashioned to -a given pattern. If a child, for example, uses the word ‘kindness,’ it -is probable that he has heard it before, but it is not certain, because -he might equally well have formed the word himself. If, however, we -hear him say ‘kindhood,’ or ‘kindship,’ or ‘wideness,’ ‘broadness,’ -‘stupidness,’ we know for certain that he has made the word up himself, -because the resultant differs from the form used in the language he -hears around him. A child who does not know the word ‘spade’ may call -the tool a _digger_; he may speak of a lamp as a _shine_. He may say -_it suns_ when the sun is shining (cf. it rains), or ask his mother to -_sauce_ his pudding. It is quite natural that the enormous number of -nouns and verbs of exactly the same form in English (_blossom_, _care_, -_drink_, _end_, _fight_, _fish_, _ape_, _hand_, _dress_, etc.) should -induce children to make new verbs according to the same pattern; I -quote a few of the examples given by O’Shea: “I am going to _basket_ -these apples.” “I _pailed_ him out” (took a turtle out of a washtub -with a pail). “I _needled_ him” (put a needle through a fly). - -Other words are formed by means of derivative endings, as _sorrified_, -_lessoner_ (O’Shea 32), _flyable_ (able to fly, Glenconner 3); “This -tooth ought to come out, because it is _crookening_ the others” (a -ten-year-old, told me by Professor Ayres). Compound nouns, too, may -be freely formed, such as _wind-ship_, _eye-curtain_ (O’Shea), a -_fun-copy_ of Romeo and Juliet (travesty, Glenconner 19). Bryan L. (ab. -5) said _springklers_ for chrysalises (‘because they wake up in the -spring’). - -Sometimes a child will make up a new word through ‘blending’ two, as -when Hilary M. (1.8 to 2) spoke of _rubbish_ = the _rub_ber to pol_ish_ -the boots, or of the _backet_, from _ba_t and r_acquet_. Beth M. (2.0) -used _breakolate_, from _break_fast and cho_colate_, and _Chally_ as a -child’s name, a compound of two sisters, _Cha_rity and S_ally_. - - -VII.--§ 6. Word-division. - -We are so accustomed to see sentences in writing or print with a -little space left after each word, that we have got altogether wrong -conceptions of language as it is spoken. Here words follow one another -without the least pause till the speaker hesitates for a word or has -come to the end of what he has to say. ‘Not at all’ sounds like ‘not a -tall.’ It therefore requires in many cases a great deal of comparison -and analysis on the part of the child to find out what is one and what -two or three words. We have seen before that the question ‘How big is -the boy?’ is to the child a single expression, beyond his powers of -analysis, and to a much later age it is the same with other phrases. -The child, then, may make false divisions, and either treat a group of -words as one word or one word as a group of words. A girl (2.6) used -the term ‘Tanobijeu’ whenever she wished her younger brother to get out -of her way. Her parents finally discovered that she had caught up and -shortened a phrase that some older children had used--‘’Tend to your -own business’ (O’Shea). - -A child, addressing her cousin as ‘Aunt Katie,’ was told “I am not -Aunt Katie, I am merely Katie.” Next day she said: “Good-morning, Aunt -merely-Katie” (translated). A child who had been praised with the -words, ‘You are a good boy,’ said to his mother, “You’re a good boy, -mother” (2.8). - -Cecil H. (4.0) came back from a party and said that she had been given -something very nice to eat. “What was it?” “Rats.” “No, no.” “Well, it -was mice then.” She had been asked if she would have ‘some-ice,’ and -had taken it to be ‘some mice.’ S. L. (2.6) constantly used ‘_ababana_’ -for ‘banana’; the form seems to have come from the question “Will -you have a banana?” but was used in such a sentence as “May I have -an ababana?” Children will often say _napple_ for _apple_ through a -misdivision of _an-apple_, and _normous_ for _enormous_; cf. Ch. X § 2. - -A few examples may be added from children’s speech in other countries. -Ronjat’s child said _nésey_ for ‘échelle,’ starting from u'ne‿échelle; -Grammont’s child said _un tarbre_, starting from _cet arbre_, and -_ce nos_ for ‘cet os,’ from _un os_; a German child said _motel_ for -‘hotel,’ starting from the combination ‘im‿(h)‿otel’ (Stern). Many -German children say _arrhöe_, because they take the first syllable of -‘diarrhöe’ as the feminine article. A Dutch child heard the phrase -‘’k weet ’t niet’ (‘I don’t know’), and said “Papa, hij kweet ’t -niet” (Van Ginneken). A Danish child heard his father say, “Jeg skal -op i _ministeriet_” (“I’m going to the Government office”), and took -the first syllable as _min_ (my); consequently he asked, “Skal du i -dinisteriet?” A French child was told that they expected Munkácsy (the -celebrated painter, in French pronounced as Mon-), and asked his aunt: -“Est-ce que _ton Kácsy_ ne viendra pas?” Antoinette K. (7.), in reply -to “C’est bien, je te félicite,” said, “Eh bien, moi je ne te _fais_ -pas _licite_.” - -The German ‘Ich habe _antgewortet_’ is obviously on the analogy of -_angenommen_, etc. (Meringer). Danish children not unfrequently -take the verb _telefonere_ as two words, and in the interrogative -form will place the personal pronoun in the middle of it, ‘Tele hun -fonerer?’ (‘Does she telephone?’) A girl asked to see _ele mer fant_ -(as if in English she had said ‘ele more phant’). Cf. ‘Give me _more -handier-cap_’ for ‘Give me a greater handicap’--in a foot-race (O’Shea -108). - - -VII.--§ 7. Sentences. - -In the first period the child knows nothing of grammar: it does not -connect words together, far less form sentences, but each word stands -by itself. ‘Up’ means what we should express by a whole sentence, ‘I -want to get up,’ or ‘Lift me up’; ‘Hat’ means ‘Put on my hat,’ or ‘I -want to put my hat on,’ or ‘I have my hat on,’ or ‘Mamma has a new hat -on’; ‘Father’ can be either ‘Here comes Father,’ or ‘This is Father,’ -or ‘He is called Father,’ or ‘I want Father to come to me,’ or ‘I want -this or that from Father.’ This particular group of sounds is vaguely -associated with the mental picture of the person in question, and is -uttered at the sight of him or at the mere wish to see him or something -else in connexion with him. - -When we say that such a word means what we should express by a whole -sentence, this does not amount to saying that the child’s ‘Up’ _is_ -a sentence, or a sentence-word, as many of those who have written -about these questions have said. We might just as well assert that -clapping our hands is a sentence, because it expresses the same idea -(or the same frame of mind) that is otherwise expressed by the whole -sentence ‘This is splendid.’ The word ‘sentence’ presupposes a certain -grammatical structure, which is wanting in the child’s utterance. - -Many investigators have asserted that the child’s first utterances -are not means of imparting information, but always an expression of -the child’s wishes and requirements. This is certainly somewhat of an -exaggeration, since the child quite clearly can make known its joy at -seeing a hat or a plaything, or at merely being able to recognize it -and remember the word for it; but the statement still contains a great -deal of truth, for without strong feelings a child would not say much, -and it is a great stimulus to talk that he very soon discovers that he -gets his wishes fulfilled more easily when he makes them known by means -of certain sounds. - -Frans (1.7) was accustomed to express his longings in general by help -of a long _m_ with rising tone, while at the same time stretching out -his hand towards the particular thing that he longed for. This he did, -for example, at dinner, when he wanted water. One day his mother said, -“Now see if you can say _vand_ (water),” and at once he said what was -an approach to the word, and was delighted at getting something to -drink by that means. A moment later he repeated what he had said, and -was inexpressibly delighted to have found the password which at once -brought him something to drink. This was repeated several times. Next -day, when his father was pouring out water for himself, the boy again -said ‘van,’ ‘van,’ and was duly rewarded. He had not heard the word -during the intervening twenty-four hours, and nothing had been done to -remind him of it. After some repetitions (for he only got a few drops -at a time) he pronounced the word for the first time quite correctly. -The day after, the same thing occurred; the word was never heard but at -dinner. When he became rather a nuisance with his constant cries for -water, his mother said: “Say please”--and immediately came his “Bebe -vand” (“Water, please”)--his first attempt to put two words together. - -Later--in this formless period--the child puts more and more words -together, often in quite haphazard order: ‘My go snow’ (‘I want to go -out into the snow’), etc. A Danish child of 2.1 said the Danish words -(imperfectly pronounced, of course) corresponding to “Oh papa lamp -mother boom,” when his mother had struck his father’s lamp with a bang. -Another child said “Papa hen corn cap” when he saw his father give corn -to the hens out of his cap. - -When Frans was 1.10, passing a post-office (which Danes call -‘posthouse’), he said of his own accord the Danish words for ‘post, -house, bring, letter’(a pause between the successive words)--I suppose -that the day before he had heard a sentence in which these words -occurred. In the same month, when he had thrown a ball a long way, he -said what would be in English ‘dat was good.’ This was not a sentence -which he had put together for himself, but a mere repetition of what -had been said to him, clearly conceived as a whole, and equivalent -to ‘bravo.’ Sentences of this kind, however, though taken as units, -prepare the way for the understanding of the words ‘that’ and ‘was’ -when they turn up in other connexions. - -One thing which plays a great rôle in children’s acquisition of -language, and especially in their early attempts to form sentences, is -Echoism: the fact that children echo what is said to them. When one -is learning a foreign language, it is an excellent method to try to -imitate to oneself in silence every sentence which one hears spoken -by a native. By that means the turns of phrases, the order of words, -the intonation of the sentence are firmly fixed in the memory--so -that they can be recalled when required, or rather recur to one quite -spontaneously without an effort. What the grown man does of conscious -purpose our children to a large extent do without a thought--that is, -they repeat aloud what they have just heard, either the whole, if it is -a very short sentence, or more commonly the conclusion, as much of it -as they can retain in their short memories. The result is a matter of -chance--it need not always have a meaning or consist of entire words. -Much, clearly, is repeated without being understood, much, again, -without being more than half understood. Take, for example (translated): - -Shall I carry you?--Frans (1.9): Carry you. - -Shall Mother carry Frans?--Carry Frans. - -The sky is so blue.--So boo. - -I shall take an umbrella.--Take rella. - -Though this feature in a child’s mental history has been often noticed, -no one seems to have seen its full significance. One of the acutest -observers (Meumann, p. 28) even says that it has no importance in -the development of the child’s speech. On the contrary, I think that -Echoism explains very much indeed. First let us bear in mind the -mutilated forms of words which a child uses: _’chine_ for machine, -_’gar_ for cigar, _Trix_ for Beatrix, etc. Then a child’s frequent use -of an indirect form of question rather than direct, ‘Why you smoke, -Father?’ which can hardly be explained except as an echo of sentences -like ‘Tell me why you smoke.’ This plays a greater rôle in Danish -than in English, and the corresponding form of the sentence has been -frequently remarked by Danish parents. Another feature which is nearly -constant with Danish children at the age when echoing is habitual is -the inverted word order: this is used after an initial adverb (_nu -kommer hun_, etc.), but the child will use it in all cases (_kommer -hun_, etc.). Further, the extremely frequent use of the infinitive, -because the child hears it towards the end of a sentence, where it is -dependent on a preceding _can_, or _may_, or _must_. ‘Not eat that’ is -a child’s echo of ‘You mustn’t eat that.’ In German this has become the -ordinary form of official order: “Nicht hinauslehnen” (“Do not lean out -of the window”). - - -VII.--§ 8. Negation and Question. - -Most children learn to say ‘no’ before they can say ‘yes’--simply -because negation is a stronger expression of feeling than affirmation. -Many little children use _nenenene_ (short _ĕ_) as a natural expression -of fretfulness and discomfort. It is perhaps so natural that it need -not be learnt: there is good reason for the fact that in so many -languages words of negation begin with _n_ (or _m_). Sometimes the _n_ -is heard without a vowel: it is only the gesture of ‘turning up one’s -nose’ made audible. - -At first the child does not express what it is that it does not -want--it merely puts it away with its hand, pushes away, for example, -what is too hot for it. But when it begins to express in words what -it is that it will not have, it does so often in the form ‘Bread no,’ -often with a pause between the words, as two separate utterances, as -when we might say, in our fuller forms of expression: ‘Do you offer -me bread? I won’t hear of it.’ So with verbs: ‘I sleep no.’ Thus with -many Danish children, and I find the same phenomenon mentioned with -regard to children of different nations. Tracy says (p. 136): “Negation -was expressed by an affirmative sentence, with an emphatic _no_ tacked -on at the end, exactly as the deaf-mutes do.” The blind-deaf Helen -Keller, when she felt her little sister’s mouth and her mother spelt -‘teeth’ to her, answered: “Baby teeth--no, baby eat--no,” i.e., baby -cannot eat because she has no teeth. In the same way, in German, ‘Stul -nei nei--schossel,’ i.e., I won’t sit on the chair, but in your lap, -and in French, ‘Papa abeié ato non, iaian abeié non,’ i.e., Papa n’est -pas encore habillé, Suzanne n’est pas habillée (Stern, 189, 203). It -seems thus that this mode of expression will crop up everywhere as an -emphatic negation. - -Interrogative sentences come generally rather early--it would be -better to say questions, because at first they do not take the form of -interrogative sentences, the interrogation being expressed by bearing, -look or gesture: when it begins to be expressed by intonation we are on -the way to question expressed in speech. Some of the earliest questions -have to do with place: ‘Where is...?’ The child very often hears such -sentences as ‘Where is its little nose?’ which are not really meant -as questions; we may also remark that questions of this type are of -great practical importance for the little thing, who soon uses them to -beg for something which has been taken away from him or is out of his -reach. Other early questions are ‘What’s that?’ and ‘Who?’ - -Later--generally, it would seem, at the close of the third -year--questions with ‘why’ crop up: these are of the utmost importance -for the child’s understanding of the whole world and its manifold -occurrences, and, however tiresome they may be when they come in long -strings, no one who wishes well to his child will venture to discourage -them. Questions about time, such as ‘When? How long?’ appear much -later, owing to the child’s difficulty in acquiring exact ideas about -time. - -Children often find a difficulty in double questions, and when asked -‘Will you have brown bread or white?’ merely answer the last word with -‘Yes.’ So in reply to ‘Is that red or yellow?’ ‘Yes’ means ‘yellow’ -(taken from a child of 4.11). I think this is an instance of the short -memories of children, who have already at the end of the question -forgotten the beginning, but Professor Mawer thinks that the real -difficulty here is in making a choice: they cannot decide between -alternatives: usually they are silent, and if they say ‘Yes’ it only -means that they do not want to go without both or feel that they must -say something. - - -VII.--§ 9. Prepositions and Idioms. - -Prepositions are of very late growth in a child’s language. Much -attention has been given to the point, and Stern has collected -statistics of the ages at which various children have first used -prepositions: the earliest age is 1.10, the average age is 2.3. It -does not, however, seem to me to be a matter of much interest how -early an individual word of some particular grammatical class is first -used; it is much more interesting to follow up the gradual growth of -the child’s command of this class and to see how the first inevitable -mistakes and confusions arise in the little brain. Stern makes the -interesting remark that when the tendency to use prepositions first -appears, it grows far more rapidly than the power to discriminate one -preposition from another; with his own children there came a time when -they employed the same word as a sort of universal preposition in all -relations. Hilda used _von_, Eva _auf_. I have never observed anything -corresponding to this among Danish children. - -All children start by putting the words for the most important concepts -together without connective words, so ‘Leave go bedroom’ (‘May I -have leave to go into the bedroom?’), ‘Out road’ (‘I am going out on -the road’). The first use of prepositions is always in set phrases -learnt as wholes, like ‘go to school,’ ‘go to pieces,’ ‘lie in bed,’ -‘at dinner.’ Not till later comes the power of using prepositions in -free combinations, and it is then that mistakes appear. Nor is this -surprising, since in all languages prepositional usage contains much -that is peculiar and arbitrary, chiefly because when we once pass -beyond a few quite clear applications of time and place, the relations -to be expressed become so vague and indefinite, that logically one -preposition might often seem just as right as another, although usage -has laid down a fast law that this preposition must be used in this -case and that in another. I noted down a great number of mistakes my -own boy made in these words, but in all cases I was able to find some -synonymous or antonymous expression in which the preposition used would -have been the correct one, and which may have been vaguely before his -mind. - -The multiple meanings of prepositions sometimes have strange results. A -little girl was in her bath, and hearing her mother say: “I will wash -you in a moment,” answered: “No, you must wash me in the bath”! She -was led astray by the two uses of _in_. We know of the child at school -who was asked “What is an average?” and said: “What the hen lays eggs -on.” Even men of science are similarly led astray by prepositions. -It is perfectly natural to say that something has passed over the -threshold of consciousness: the metaphor is from the way in which you -enter a house by stepping over the threshold. If the metaphor were -kept, the opposite situation would be expressed by the statement that -such and such a thing is outside the threshold of consciousness. But -psychologists, in the thoughtless way of little children, take _under_ -to be always the opposite of _over_, and so speak of things ‘lying -under (or below) the threshold of our consciousness,’ and have even -invented a Latin word for the unconscious, viz. _subliminal_.[22] - -Children may use verbs with an object which require a preposition -(‘Will you _wait_ me?’), or which are only used intransitively (‘Will -you _jump_ me?’), or they may mix up an infinitival with a direct -construction (‘Could you hear me sneezed?’). But it is surely needless -to multiply examples. - -When many years ago, in my _Progress in Language_, I spoke of the -advantages, even to natives, of simplicity in linguistic structure, -Professor Herman Möller, in a learned review, objected to me that to -the adult learning a foreign tongue the chief difficulty consists in -“the countless chicaneries due to the tyrannical and capricious usage, -whose tricks there is no calculating; but these offer to the native -child no such difficulty as morphology may,” and again, in speaking -of the choice of various prepositions, which is far from easy to the -foreigner, he says: “But any considerable mental exertion on the part -of the native child learning its mother-tongue is here, of course, -out of the question.” Such assertions as these cannot be founded on -actual observation; at any rate, it is my experience in listening to -children’s talk that long after they have reached the point where they -make hardly any mistake in pronunciation and verbal forms, etc., they -are still capable of using many turns of speech which are utterly -opposed to the spirit of the language, and which are in the main of -the same kind as those which foreigners are apt to fall into. Many of -the child’s mistakes are due to mixtures or blendings of two turns -of expression, and not a few of them may be logically justified. But -learning a language implies among other things learning what you may -_not_ say in the language, even though no reasonable ground can be -given for the prohibition. - -FOOTNOTE: - -[22] H. G. Wells writes (_Soul of a Bishop_, 94): “He was lugging -things now into speech that so far had been _scarcely above the -threshold_ of his conscious thought.” Here we see the wrong -interpretation of the preposition _over_ dragging with it the synonym -_above_. - - - - -CHAPTER VIII - -SOME FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEMS - - § 1. Why is the Native Language learnt so well? § 2. Natural - Ability and Sex. § 3. Mother-tongue and Other Tongue. § 4. Playing - at Language. § 5. Secret Languages. § 6. Onomatopœia. § 7. - Word-inventions. § 8. ‘Mamma’ and ‘Papa.’ - - -VIII.--§ 1. Why is the Native Language learnt so well? - -How does it happen that children in general learn their mother-tongue -so well? That this is a problem becomes clear when we contrast -a child’s first acquisition of its mother-tongue with the later -acquisition of any foreign tongue. The contrast is indeed striking -and manifold: _here_ we have a quite little child, without experience -or prepossessions; _there_ a bigger child, or it may be a grown-up -person with all sorts of knowledge and powers: _here_ a haphazard -method of procedure; _there_ the whole task laid out in a system (for -even in the schoolbooks that do not follow the old grammatical system -there is a certain definite order of progress from more elementary to -more difficult matters): _here_ no professional teachers, but chance -parents, brothers and sisters, nursery-maids and playmates; _there_ -teachers trained for many years specially to teach languages: _here_ -only oral instruction; _there_ not only that, but reading-books, -dictionaries and other assistance. And yet this is the result: _here_ -complete and exact command of the language as a native speaks it, -however stupid the children; _there_, in most cases, even with people -otherwise highly gifted, a defective and inexact command of the -language. On what does this difference depend? - -The problem has never been elucidated or canvassed from all sides, -but here and there one finds a partial answer, often given out to be -a complete answer. Often one side of the question only is considered, -that which relates to sounds, as if the whole problem had been -solved when one had found a reason for children acquiring a better -pronunciation of their mother-tongue than one generally gets in later -life of a foreign speech. - -Many people accordingly tell us that children’s organs of speech are -especially flexible, but that this suppleness of the tongue and lips is -lost in later life. This explanation, however, does not hold water, -as is shown sufficiently by the countless mistakes in sound made by -children. If their organs were as flexible as is pretended, they could -learn sounds correctly at once, while as a matter of fact it takes a -long time before all the sounds and groups of sounds are imitated with -tolerable accuracy. Suppleness is not something which is original, but -something acquired later, and acquired with no small difficulty, and -then only with regard to the sounds of one’s own language, and not -universally. - -The same applies to the second answer (given by Bremer, _Deutsche -Phonetik_, 2), namely, that the child’s ear is especially sensitive to -impressions. The ear also requires development, since at first it can -scarcely detect a number of _nuances_ which we grown-up people hear -most distinctly. - -Some people say that the reason why a child learns its native language -so well is that it has no established habits to contend against. But -that is not right either: as any good observer can see, the process -by which the child acquires sounds is pursued through a continuous -struggle against bad habits which it has acquired at an earlier stage -and which may often have rooted themselves remarkably firmly. - -Sweet (H 19) says among other things that the conditions of learning -vernacular sounds are so favourable because the child has nothing else -to do at the time. On the contrary, one may say that the child has an -enormous deal to do while it is learning the language; it is at that -time active beyond all belief: in a short time it subdues wider tracts -than it ever does later in a much longer time. The more wonderful -is it that along with those tasks it finds strength to learn its -mother-tongue and its many refinements and crooked turns. - -Some point to heredity and say that a child learns that language most -easily which it is disposed beforehand to learn by its ancestry, or in -other words that there are inherited convolutions of the brain which -take in this language better than any other. Perhaps there is something -in this, but we have no definite, carefully ascertained facts. Against -the theory stands the fact that the children of immigrants acquire the -language of their foster-country to all appearance just as surely and -quickly as children of the same age whose forefathers have been in the -country for ages. This may be observed in England, in Denmark, and -still more in North America. Environment clearly has greater influence -than descent. - -The real answer in my opinion (which is not claimed to be absolutely -new in every respect) lies partly in the child itself, partly in the -behaviour towards it of the people around it. In the first place, the -time of learning the mother-tongue is the most favourable of all, -namely, the first years of life. If one assumes that mental endowment -means the capacity for development, without doubt all children are best -endowed in their first years: from birth onwards there is a steady -decline in the power of grasping what is new and of accommodating -oneself to it. With some this decline is a very rapid one--they quickly -become fossilized and unable to make a change in their habits; with -others one can notice a happy power of development even in old age; but -no one keeps very long in its full range the adaptability of his first -years. - -Further, we must remember that the child has far more abundant -opportunities of hearing his mother-tongue than one gets, as a rule, -with any language one learns later. He hears it from morning to night, -and, be it noted, in its genuine shape, with the right pronunciation, -right intonation, right use of words and right syntax: the language -comes to him as a fresh, ever-bubbling spring. Even before he begins to -say anything himself, his first understanding of the language is made -easier by the habit that mothers and nurses have of repeating the same -phrases with slight alterations, and at the same time doing the thing -which they are talking about. “Now we must wash the little face, now we -must wash the little forehead, now we must wash the little nose, now -we must wash the little chin, now we must wash the little ear,” etc. -If _men_ had to attend to their children, they would never use so many -words--but in that case the child would scarcely learn to understand -and talk as soon as it does when it is cared for by women.[23] - -Then the child has, as it were, private lessons in its mother-tongue -all the year round. There is nothing of the kind in the learning of a -language later, when at most one has six hours a week and generally -shares them with others. The child has another priceless advantage: he -hears the language in all possible situations and under such conditions -that language and situation ever correspond exactly to one another -and mutually illustrate one another. Gesture and facial expression -harmonize with the words uttered and keep the child to a right -understanding. Here there is nothing unnatural, such as is often the -case in a language-lesson in later years, when one talks about ice and -snow in June or excessive heat in January. And what the child hears is -just what immediately concerns him and interests him, and again and -again his own attempts at speech lead to the fulfilment of his dearest -wishes, so that his command of language has great practical advantages -for him. - -Along with what he himself sees the use of, he hears a great deal which -does not directly concern him, but goes into the little brain and is -stored up there to turn up again later. Nothing is heard but leaves -its traces, and at times one is astonished to discover what has been -preserved, and with what exactness. One day, when Frans was 4.11 old, -he suddenly said: “Yesterday--isn’t there some who say yesterday?” -(giving _yesterday_ with the correct English pronunciation), and when I -said that it was an English word, he went on: “Yes, it is Mrs. B.: she -often says like that, yesterday.” Now, it was three weeks since that -lady had called at the house and talked English. It is a well-known -fact that hypnotized persons can sometimes say whole sentences in a -language which they do not know, but have merely heard in childhood. -In books about children’s language there are many remarkable accounts -of such linguistic memories which had lain buried for long stretches -of time. A child who had spent the first eighteen months of its life -in Silesia and then came to Berlin, where it had no opportunity of -hearing the Silesian pronunciation, at the age of five suddenly came -out with a number of Silesian expressions, which could not after the -most careful investigation be traced to any other source than to the -time before it could talk (Stern, 257 ff.). Grammont has a story of a -little French girl, whose nurse had talked French with a strong Italian -accent; the child did not begin to speak till a month after this nurse -had left, but pronounced many words with Italian sounds, and some of -these peculiarities stuck to the child till the age of three. - -We may also remark that the baby’s teachers, though, regarded as -teachers of language, they may not be absolutely ideal, still have -some advantages over those one encounters as a rule later in life. -The relation between them and the child is far more cordial and -personal, just because they are not teachers first and foremost. They -are immensely interested in every little advance the child makes. The -most awkward attempt meets with sympathy, often with admiration, while -its defects and imperfections never expose it to a breath of unkind -criticism. There is a Slavonic proverb, “If you wish to talk well, you -must murder the language first.” But this is very often overlooked -by teachers of language, who demand faultless accuracy from the -beginning, and often keep their pupils grinding so long at some little -part of the subject that their desire to learn the language is weakened -or gone for good. There is nothing of this sort in the child’s first -learning of his language. - -It is here that our distinction between the two periods comes in, that -of the child’s own separate ‘little language’ and that of the common or -social language. In the first period the little one is the centre of -a narrow circle of his own, which waits for each little syllable that -falls from his lips as though it were a grain of gold. What teachers -of languages in later years would rejoice at hearing such forms as we -saw before used in the time of the child’s ‘little language,’ _fant_ -or _vat_ or _ham_ for ‘elephant’? But the mother really does rejoice: -she laughs and exults when he can use these syllables about his -toy-elephant, she throws the cloak of her love over the defects and -mistakes in the little one’s imitations of words, she remembers again -and again what his strange sounds stand for, and her eager sympathy -transforms the first and most difficult steps on the path of language -to the merriest game. - -It would not do, however, for the child’s ‘little language’ and its -dreadful mistakes to become fixed. This might easily happen, if the -child were never out of the narrow circle of its own family, which -knows and recognizes its ‘little language.’ But this is stopped because -it comes more and more into contact with others--uncles and aunts, and -especially little cousins and playmates: more and more often it happens -that the mutilated words are not understood, and are corrected and made -fun of, and the child is incited in this way to steady improvement: the -‘little language’ gradually gives place to the ‘common language,’ as -the child becomes a member of a social group larger than that of his -own little home. - -We have now probably found the chief reasons why a child learns his -mother-tongue better than even a grown-up person who has been for a -long time in a foreign country learns the language of his environment. -But it is also a contributory reason that the child’s linguistic needs, -to begin with, are far more limited than those of the man who wishes -to be able to talk about anything, or at any rate about something. -Much more is also linguistically required of the latter, and he must -have recourse to language to get all his needs satisfied, while the -baby is well looked after even if it says nothing but _wawawawa_. So -the baby has longer time to store up his impressions and continue his -experiments, until by trying again and again he at length gets his -lesson learnt in all its tiny details, while the man in the foreign -country, who _must_ make himself understood, as a rule goes on trying -only till he has acquired a form of speech which he finds natives -understand: at this point he will generally stop, at any rate as far as -pronunciation and the construction of sentences are concerned (while -his vocabulary may be largely increased). But this ‘just recognizable’ -language is incorrect in thousands of small details, and, inasmuch -as bad little habits quickly become fixed, the kind of language is -produced which we know so well in the case of resident foreigners--who -need hardly open their lips before everyone knows they are not natives, -and before a practised ear can detect the country they hail from.[24] - - -VIII.--§ 2. Natural Ability and Sex. - -An important factor in the acquisition of language which we have not -considered is naturally the individuality of the child. Parents are -apt to draw conclusions as to the abilities of their young hopeful -from the rapidity with which he learns to talk; but those who are -in despair because their Tommy cannot say a single word when their -neighbours’ Harry can say a great deal may take comfort. Slowness in -talking _may_ of course mean deficiency of ability, or even idiocy, but -not necessarily. A child who chatters early may remain a chatterer all -his life, and children whose motto is ‘Slow and sure’ may turn out the -deepest, most independent and most trustworthy characters in the end. -There are some children who cannot be made to say a single word for -a long time, and then suddenly come out with a whole sentence, which -shows how much has been quietly fructifying in their brain. Carlyle -was one of these: after eleven months of taciturnity he heard a child -cry, and astonished all by saying, “What ails wee Jock?” Edmund Gosse -has a similar story of his own childhood, and other examples have been -recorded elsewhere (Meringer, 194; Stern, 257). - -The linguistic development of an individual child is not always in a -steady rising line, but in a series of waves. A child who seems to have -a boundless power of acquiring language suddenly stands still or even -goes back for a short time. The cause may be sickness, cutting teeth, -learning to walk, or often a removal to new surroundings or an open-air -life in summer. Under such circumstances even the word ‘I’ may be lost -for a time. - -Some children develop very rapidly for some years until they have -reached a certain point, where they stop altogether, while others -retain the power to develop steadily to a much later age. It is the -same with some races: negro children in American schools may, while -they are little, be up to the standard of their white schoolfellows, -whom they cannot cope with in later life. - -The two sexes differ very greatly in regard to speech--as in regard -to most other things. Little girls, on the average, learn to talk -earlier and more quickly than boys; they outstrip them in talking -correctly; their pronunciation is not spoilt by the many bad habits and -awkwardnesses so often found in boys. It has been proved by statistics -in many countries that there are far more stammerers and bad speakers -among boys and men than among girls and women. The general receptivity -of women, their great power of, and pleasure in, imitation, their -histrionic talent, if one may so say--all this is a help to them at an -early age, so that they can get into other people’s way of talking with -greater agility than boys of the same age. - -Everything that is conventional in language, everything in which the -only thing of importance is to be in agreement with those around you, -is the girls’ strong point. Boys may often show a certain reluctance to -do exactly as others do: the peculiarities of their ‘little language’ -are retained by them longer than by girls, and they will sometimes -steadily refuse to correct their own abnormalities, which is very -seldom the case with girls. Gaucherie and originality thus are two -points between which the speech of boys is constantly oscillating. Cf. -below, Ch. XIII. - - -VIII.--§ 3. Mother-tongue and Other Tongue. - -The expression “mother-tongue” should not be understood too literally: -the language which the child acquires naturally is not, or not always, -his mother’s language. When a mother speaks with a foreign accent or in -a pronounced dialect, her children as a rule speak their language as -correctly as other children, or keep only the slightest tinge of their -mother’s peculiarities. I have seen this very distinctly in many Danish -families, in which the mother has kept up her Norwegian language all -her life, and in which the children have spoken pure Danish. Thus also -in two families I know, in which a strong Swedish accent in one mother, -and an unmistakable American pronunciation in the other, have not -prevented the children from speaking Danish exactly as if their mothers -had been born and bred in Denmark. I cannot, therefore, agree with -Passy, who says that the child learns his mother’s sound system (Ch § -32), or with Dauzat’s dictum to the same effect (V 20). The father, as -a rule, has still less influence; but what is decisive is the speech -of those with whom the child comes in closest contact from the age -of three or so, thus frequently servants, but even more effectually -playfellows of his own age or rather slightly older than himself, with -whom he is constantly thrown together for hours at a time and whose -prattle is constantly in his ears at the most impressionable age, while -he may not see and hear his father and mother except for a short time -every day, at meals and on such occasions. It is also a well-known fact -that the children of Danish parents in Greenland often learn the Eskimo -language before Danish; and Meinhof says that German children in the -African colonies will often learn the language of the natives earlier -than German (MSA 139). - -This is by no means depreciating the mother’s influence, which is -strong indeed, but chiefly in the first period, that of the child’s -‘little language.’ But that is the time when the child’s imitative -power is weakest. His exact attention to the minutiæ of language -dates from the time when he is thrown into a wider circle and has to -make himself understood by many, so that his language becomes really -identical with that of the community, where formerly he and his mother -would rest contented with what _they_, but hardly anyone else, could -understand. - -The influence of children on children cannot be overestimated.[25] -Boys at school make fun of any peculiarities of speech noticed in -schoolfellows who come from some other part of the country. Kipling -tells us in _Stalky and Co._ how Stalky and Beetle carefully _kicked_ -McTurk out of his Irish dialect. When I read this, I was vividly -reminded of the identical method my new friends applied to me when at -the age of ten I was transplanted from Jutland to a school in Seeland -and excited their merriment through some Jutlandish expressions and -intonations. And so we may say that the most important factor in -spreading the common or standard language is children themselves. - -It often happens that children who are compelled at home to talk -without any admixture of dialect talk pure dialect when playing with -their schoolfellows out of doors. They can keep the two forms of -speech distinct. In the same way they can learn two languages less -closely connected. At times this results in very strange blendings, at -least for a time; but many children will easily pass from one language -to the other without mixing them up, especially if they come in contact -with the two languages in different surroundings or on the lips of -different people. - -It is, of course, an advantage for a child to be familiar with two -languages: but without doubt the advantage may be, and generally is, -purchased too dear. First of all the child in question hardly learns -either of the two languages as perfectly as he would have done if he -had limited himself to one. It may seem, on the surface, as if he -talked just like a native, but he does not really command the fine -points of the language. Has any bilingual child ever developed into a -great artist in speech, a poet or orator? - -Secondly, the brain effort required to master two languages instead of -one certainly diminishes the child’s power of learning other things -which might and ought to be learnt. Schuchardt rightly remarks that if -a bilingual man has two strings to his bow, both are rather slack, and -that the three souls which the ancient Roman said he possessed, owing -to his being able to talk three different languages, were probably very -indifferent souls after all. A native of Luxemburg, where it is usual -for children to talk both French and German, says that few Luxemburgers -talk both languages perfectly. “Germans often say to us: ‘You speak -German remarkably well for a Frenchman,’ and French people will say, -‘They are Germans who speak our language excellently.’ Nevertheless, we -never speak either language as fluently as the natives. The worst of -the system is, that instead of learning things necessary to us we must -spend our time and energy in learning to express the same thought in -two or three languages at the same time.”[26] - - -VIII.--§ 4. Playing at Language. - -The child takes delight in making meaningless sounds long after it has -learnt to talk the language of its elders. At 2.2 Frans amused himself -with long series of such sounds, uttered with the most confiding -look and proper intonation, and it was a joy to him when I replied -with similar sounds. He kept up this game for years. Once (4.11) -after such a performance he asked me: “Is that English?”--“No.”--“Why -not?”--“Because I understand English, but I do not understand what -you say.” An hour later he came back and asked: “Father, do you know -all languages?”--“No, there are many I don’t know.”--“Do you know -German?”--“Yes.” (Frans looked rather crestfallen: the servants had -often said of his invented language that he was talking German. So he -went on) “Do you know Japanese?”--“No.”--(Delighted) “So remember when -I say something you don’t understand, it’s Japanese.” - -It is the same everywhere. Hawthorne writes: “Pearl mumbled something -into his ear, that sounded, indeed, like human language, but was only -such gibberish as children may be heard amusing themselves with, by -the hour together” (_The Scarlet Letter_, 173). And R. L. Stevenson: -“Children prefer the shadow to the substance. When they might be -speaking intelligibly together, they chatter senseless gibberish by -the hour, and are quite happy because they are making believe to speak -French” (_Virginibus P._, 236; cf. Glenconner, p. 40; Stern, pp. 76, -91, 103). Meringer’s boy (2.1) took the music-book and sang a tune of -his own making with incomprehensible words. - -Children also take delight in varying the sounds of real words, -introducing, for instance, alliterations, as “Sing a song of sixpence, -A socket full of sye,” etc. Frans at 2.3 amused himself by rounding -all his vowels (_o_ for _a_, _y_ for _i_), and at 3.1 by making -all words of a verse line he had learnt begin with _d_, then the -same words begin with _t_. O’Shea (p. 32) says that “most children -find pleasure in the production of variations upon some of their -familiar words. Their purpose seems to be to test their ability to -be original. The performance of an unusual act affords pleasure in -linguistics as in other matters. H., learning the word _dessert_, to -illustrate, plays with it for a time and exhibits it in a dozen or more -variations--_dĭssert_, _dishert_, _dĕsot_, _des'sert_, and so on.” - -Rhythm and rime appeal strongly to the children’s minds. One English -observer says that “a child in its third year will copy the rhythm of -songs and verses it has heard in nonsense words.” The same thing is -noted by Meringer (p. 116) and Stern (p. 103). Tony E. (2.10) suddenly -made up the rime “My mover, I lov-er,” and Gordon M. (2.6) never tired -of repeating a phrase of his own composition, “Custard over mustard.” A -Danish girl of 3.1 is reported as having a “curious knack of twisting -all words into rimes: bestemor hestemor prestemor, Gudrun sludrun -pludrun, etc.” - - -VIII.--§ 5. Secret Languages. - -Children, as we have seen, at first employ play-language for its own -sake, with no _arrière-pensée_, but as they get older they may see -that such language has the advantage of not being understood by their -elders, and so they may develop a ‘secret language’ consciously. Some -such languages are confined to one school, others may be in common -use among children of a certain age all over a country. ‘M-gibberish’ -and ‘S-gibberish’ consist in inserting _m_ and _s_, as in _goming -mout tomdaym_ or _gosings outs tosdays_ for ‘going out to-day’; -‘Marrowskying’ or ‘Hospital Greek’ transfers the initial letters of -words, as _renty of plain_ for ‘plenty of rain,’ _flutterby_ for -‘butterfly’; ‘Ziph’ or ‘Hypernese’ (at Winchester) substitutes _wa_ -for the first of two initial consonants and inserts _p_ or _g_, making -‘breeches’ into _wareechepes_ and ‘penny’ into _pegennepy_. From my own -boyhood in Denmark I remember two languages of this sort, in which a -sentence like ‘du er et lille asen’ became _dupu erper etpet lilpillepe -apasenpen_ and _durbe erbe erbe lirbelerbe arbeserbe_ respectively. -Closely corresponding languages, with insertion of _p_ and addition of -_-erbse_, are found in Germany; in Holland we find ‘de schoone Mei’ -made into _depé schoopóonepé Meipéi_, besides an _-erwi-taal_ with a -variation in which the ending is _-erf_. In France such a language is -called _javanais_; ‘je vais bien’ is made into _je-de-que vais-dai-qai -bien-den-qen_. In Savoy the cowherds put _deg_ after each syllable -and thus make ‘a-te kogneu se vaçhi’ (‘as-tu connu ce vacher?’ in the -local dialect) into _a-degá te-dege ko-dego gnu-degu sé-degé va-dega -chi-degi?_ Nay, even among the Maoris of New Zealand there is a similar -secret language, in which instead of ‘kei te, haere au ki reira’ is -said _te-kei te-i-te te-haere-te-re te-a te-u te-ki te-re-te-i-te-ra_. -Human nature is pretty much the same everywhere.[27] - - -VIII.--§ 6. Onomatopœia. - -Do children really create new words? This question has been much -discussed, but even those who are most skeptical in that respect -incline to allow them this power in the case of words which imitate -sounds. Nevertheless, it should be remembered that the majority of -onomatopœic words heard from children are not their own invention, but -are acquired by them in the same way as other words. Hence it is that -such words have different forms in different languages. Thus to English -_cockadoodledoo_ corresponds French _coquerico_, German _kikeriki_ and -Danish _kykeliky_, to E. _quack-quack_, F. _cancan_, Dan. _raprap_, -etc. These words are an imperfect representation of the birds’ natural -cry, but from their likeness to it they are easier for the child to -seize than an entirely arbitrary name such as _duck_. - -But, side by side with these, children do invent forms of their own, -though the latter generally disappear quickly in favour of the -traditional forms. Thus Frans (2.3) had coined the word _vakvak_, which -his mother had heard sometimes without understanding what he meant, -when one day he pointed at some crows while repeating the same word; -but when his mother told him that these birds were called _krager_, he -took hold of this word with eagerness and repeated it several times, -evidently recognizing it as a better name than his own. A little boy of -2.1 called soda-water _ft_, another boy said _ging_ or _gingging_ for a -clock, also for the railway train, while his brother said _dann_ for a -bell or clock; a little girl (1.9) said _pooh_ (whispered) for ‘match, -cigar, pipe,’ and _gagag_ for ‘hen,’ etc. - -When once formed, such words may be transferred to other things, where -the sound plays no longer any rôle. This may be illustrated through two -extensions of the same word _bŏom_ or _bom_, used by two children first -to express the sound of something falling on the floor; then Ellen K. -(1.9) used it for a ‘blow,’ and finally for anything disagreeable, e.g. -soap in the eyes, while Kaare G. (1.8), after seeing a plate smashed, -used the word for a broken plate and afterwards for anything broken, a -hole in a dress, etc., also when a button had come off or when anything -else was defective in any way. - - -VIII.--§ 7. Word-inventions. - -Do children themselves create words--apart from onomatopœic words? To -me there is no doubt that they do. Frans invented many words at his -games that had no connexion, or very little connexion, with existing -words. He was playing with a little twig when I suddenly heard him -exclaim: “This is called _lampetine_,” but a little while afterwards he -said _lanketine_, and then again _lampetine_, and then he said, varying -the play, “Now it is _kluatine_ and _traniklualalilua_” (3.6). A month -later I write: “He is never at a loss for a self-invented word; for -instance, when he has made a figure with his bricks which resembles -nothing whatever, he will say, ‘That shall be _lindam_.’” When he -played at trains in the garden, there were many stations with fanciful -names, and at one time he and two cousins had a word _kukukounen_ which -they repeated constantly and thought great fun, but whose inner meaning -I never succeeded in discovering. An English friend writes about his -daughter: “When she was about two and a quarter she would often use -some nonsense word in the middle of a perfectly intelligible sentence. -When you asked her its meaning she would explain it by another equally -unintelligible, and so on through a series as long as you cared to -make it.” At 2.10 she pretended she had lost her bricks, and when you -showed her that they were just by her, she insisted that they were not -‘bricks’ at all, but _mums_. - -In all accounts of children’s talk you find words which cannot be -referred back to the normal language, but which have cropped up from -some unsounded depth of the child’s soul. I give a few from notes sent -to me by Danish friends: _goi_ ‘comb,’ _putput_ ‘stocking, or any other -piece of garment,’ _i-a-a_ ‘chocolate,’ _gön_ ‘water to drink, milk’ -(kept apart from the usual word _vand_ for water, which she used only -for water to wash in), _hesh_ ‘newspaper, book.’ Some such words have -become famous in psychological literature because they were observed by -Darwin and Taine. Among less famous instances from other books I may -mention _tibu_ ‘bird’ (Strümpel), _adi_ ‘cake’ (Ament), _be’lum-be’lum_ -‘toy with two men turning about,’ _wakaka_ ‘soldier,’ _nda_ ‘jar,’ -_pamma_ ‘pencil,’ _bium_ ‘stocking’ (Meringer). - -An American correspondent writes that his boy was fond of pushing a -stick over the carpet after the manner of a carpet-sweeper and called -the operation _jazing_. He coined the word _borkens_ as a name for a -particular sort of blocks with which he was accustomed to play. He was -a nervous child and his imagination created objects of terror that -haunted him in the dark, and to these he gave the name of _Boons_. This -name may, however, be derived from _baboons_. Mr. Harold Palmer tells -me that his daughter (whose native language was French) at an early -age used ['fu'wɛ] for ‘soap’ and [dɛ'dɛtʃ] for ‘horse, wooden horse, -merry-go-round.’ - -Dr. F. Poulsen, in his book _Rejser og rids_ (Copenhagen, 1920), -says about his two-year-old daughter that when she gets hold of her -mother’s fur-collar she will pet it and lavish on it all kinds of -tender self-invented names, such as _apu_ or _a-fo-me-me_. The latter -word, “which has all the melodious euphony and vague signification of -primitive language,” is applied to anything that is rare and funny -and worth rejoicing at. On a summer day’s excursion there was one new -_a-fo-me-me_ after the other. - -In spite of all this, a point on which all the most distinguished -investigators of children’s language of late years are agreed is that -children never invent words. Wundt goes so far as to say that “the -child’s language is the result of the child’s environment, the child -being essentially a passive instrument in the matter” (S 1. 196)--one -of the most wrong-headed sentences I have ever read in the works of -a great scientist. Meumann says: “Preyer and after him almost every -careful observer among child-psychologists have strongly held the view -that it is impossible to speak of a child inventing a word.” Similarly -Meringer, L 220, Stern, 126, 273, 337 ff., Bloomfield, SL 12. - -These investigators seem to have been led astray by expressions such as -‘shape out of nothing,’ ‘invent,’ ‘original creation’ (Urschöpfung), -and to have taken this doctrinaire attitude in partial defiance of the -facts they have themselves advanced. Expressions like those adduced -occur over and over again in their discussions, and Meumann says -openly: “Invention demands a methodical proceeding with intention, a -conception of an end to be realized.” Of course, if that is necessary -it is clear that we can speak of invention of words in the case of a -chemist seeking a word for a new substance, and not in the case of a -tiny child. But are there not many inventions in the technical world, -which we do not hesitate to call inventions, which have come about more -or less by chance? Wasn’t it so probably with gunpowder? According to -the story it certainly was so with blotting-paper: the foreman who had -forgotten to add size to a portion of writing-paper was dismissed, but -the manufacturer who saw that the paper thus spoilt could be turned to -account instead of the sand hitherto used made a fortune. So according -to Meumann blotting-paper has never been ‘invented.’ If in order to -acknowledge a child’s creation of a word we are to postulate that it -has been produced out of nothing, what about bicycles, fountain-pens, -typewriters--each of which was something existing before, carried -just a little further? Are they on that account not inventions? -One would think not, when one reads these writers on children’s -language, for as soon as the least approximation to a word in the -normal language is discovered, the child is denied both ‘invention’ -and ‘the speech-forming faculty’! Thus Stern (p. 338) says that his -daughter in her second year used some words which might be taken as -proof of the power to create words, but for the fact that it was here -possible to show how these ‘new’ words had grown out of normal words. -_Eischei_, for instance, was used as a verb meaning ‘go, walk,’ but it -originated in the words _eins, zwei_ (one, two) which were said when -the child was taught to walk. Other examples are given comparable to -those mentioned above (106, 115) as mutilations of the first period. -Now, even if all those words given by myself and others as original -inventions of children could be proved to be similar perversions of -‘real’ words (which is not likely), I should not hesitate to speak of -a word-creating faculty, for _eischei_, ‘to walk,’ is both in form and -still more in meaning far enough from _eins, zwei_ to be reckoned a -totally new word. - -We can divide words ‘invented’ by children into three classes: - - A. The child gives both sound and meaning. - - B. The grown-up people give the sound, and the child the meaning. - - C. The child gives the sound, grown-up people the meaning. - -But the three classes cannot always be kept apart, especially when -the child imitates the grown-up person’s sound so badly or seizes -the meaning so imperfectly that very little is left of what the -grown-up person gives. As a rule, the self-created words will be very -short-lived; still, there are exceptions. - -O’Shea’s account of one of these words is very instructive. “She had -also a few words of her own coining which were attached spontaneously -to objects, and these her elders took up, and they became fixed in her -vocabulary for a considerable period. A word resembling _Ndobbin_ was -employed for every sort of thing which she used for food. The word -came originally from an accidental combination of sounds made while -she was eating. By the aid of the people about her in responding to -this term and repeating it, she ‘selected’ it and for a time used it -purposefully. She employed it at the outset for a specific article of -food; then her elders extended it to other articles, and this aided -her in making the extension herself. Once started in this process, -she extended the term to many objects associated with her food, -even objects as remote from her original experience as dining-room, -high-chair, kitchen, and even apple and plum trees” (O’Shea, 27). - -To Class A I assign most of the words already given as the child’s -creations, whether the child be great or small. - -Class B is that which is most sparsely represented. A child in Finland -often heard the well-known line about King Karl (Charles XII), “Han -stod i rök och damm” (“He stood in smoke and dust”), and taking _rö_ -to be the adjective meaning ‘red,’ imagined the remaining syllables, -which he heard as _kordamm_, to be the name of some piece of garment. -This amused his parents so much that _kordamm_ became the name of a -dressing-gown in that family. - -To Class C, where the child contributes only the sound and the older -people give a meaning to what on the child’s side was meaningless--a -process that reminds one of the invention of blotting-paper--belong -some of the best-known words, which require a separate section. - - -VIII.--§ 8. ‘Mamma’ and ‘Papa.’ - -In the nurseries of all countries a little comedy has in all ages -been played--the baby lies and babbles his ‘mamama’ or ‘amama’ or -‘papapa’ or ‘apapa’ or ‘bababa’ or ‘ababab’ without associating the -slightest meaning with his mouth-games, and his grown-up friends, -in their joy over the precocious child, assign to these syllables a -rational sense, accustomed as they are themselves to the fact of an -uttered sound having a content, a thought, an idea, corresponding to -it. So we get a whole class of words, distinguished by a simplicity -of sound-formation--never two consonants together, generally the same -consonant repeated with an _a_ between, frequently also with an _a_ at -the end--words found in many languages, often in different forms, but -with essentially the same meaning. - -First we have words for ‘mother.’ It is very natural that the mother -who is greeted by her happy child with the sound ‘mama’ should take it -as though the child were _calling_ her ‘mama,’ and since she frequently -comes to the cradle when she hears the sound, the child himself does -learn to use these syllables when he wants to call her. In this way -they become a recognized word for the idea ‘mother’--now with the -stress on the first syllable, now on the second. In French we get a -nasal vowel either in the last syllable only or in both syllables. At -times we have only one syllable, _ma_. When once these syllables have -become a regular word they follow the speech laws which govern other -words; thus among other forms we get the German _muhme_, the meaning -of which (‘aunt’) is explained as in the words mentioned, p. 118. In -very early times _ma_ in our group of languages was supplied with a -termination, so that we get the form underlying Greek _mētēr_, Lat. -_mater_ (whence Fr. _mère_, etc.), our own _mother_, G. _mutter_, etc. -These words became the recognized grown-up words, while _mama_ itself -was only used in the intimacy of the family. It depends on fashion, -however, how ‘high up’ _mama_ can be used: in some countries and in -some periods children are allowed to use it longer than in others. - -The forms _mama_ and _ma_ are not the only ones for ‘mother.’ The -child’s _am_ has also been seized and maintained by the grown-ups. -The Albanian word for ‘mother’ is _ama_, the Old Norse word for -‘grandmother’ is _amma_. The Latin _am-ita_, formed from _am_ with -a termination added, came to mean ‘aunt’ and became in OFr. _ante_, -whence E. _aunt_ and Modern Fr. _tante_. In Semitic languages the words -for ‘mother’ also have a vowel before _m_: Assyrian _ummu_, Hebrew -_’êm_, etc. - -_Baba_, too, is found in the sense ‘mother,’ especially in Slavonic -languages, though it has here developed various derivative meanings, -‘old woman,’ ‘grandmother,’ or ‘midwife.’ In Tonga we have _bama_ -‘mother.’ - -Forms with _n_ are also found for ‘mother’; so Sanskrit _naná_, -Albanian _nane_. Here we have also Gr. _nannē_ ‘aunt’ and Lat. _nonna_; -the latter ceased in the early Middle Ages to mean ‘grandmother’ and -became a respectful way of addressing women of a certain age, whence -we know it as _nun_, the feminine counterpart of ‘monk.’ From less -known languages I may mention Greenlandic _a'na·na_ ‘mother,’ _'a·na_ -‘grandmother.’ - -Now we come to words meaning ‘father,’ and quite naturally, where the -sound-groups containing _m_ have already been interpreted in the sense -‘mother,’ a word for ‘father’ will be sought in the syllables with -_p_. It is no doubt frequently noticed in the nursery that the baby -says _mama_ where one expected _papa_, and vice versa; but at last he -learns to deal out the syllables ‘rightly,’ as we say. The history -of the forms _papa_, _pappa_ and _pa_ is analogous to the history of -the _m_ syllables already traced. We have the same extension of the -sound by _tr_ in the word _pater_, which according to recognized laws -of sound-change is found in the French _père_, the English _father_, -the Danish _fader_, the German _vater_, etc. Philologists no longer, -fortunately, derive these words from a root _pa_ ‘to protect,’ and -see therein a proof of the ‘highly moral spirit’ of our aboriginal -ancestors, as Fick and others did. _Papa_, as we know, also became an -honourable title for a reverend ecclesiastic, and hence comes the name -which we have in the form _Pope_. - -Side by side with the p forms we have forms in _b_--Italian _babbo_, -Bulgarian _babá_, Serbian _bába_, Turkish _baba_. Beginning with the -vowel we have the Semitic forms _ab_, _abu_ and finally _abba_, which -is well known, since through Greek _abbas_ it has become the name for -a spiritual father in all European languages, our form being _Abbot_. - -Again, we have some names for ‘father’ with dental sounds: Sanskrit -_tatá_, Russian _tata_, _tyatya_, Welsh _tat_, etc. The English _dad_, -now so universal, is sometimes considered to have been borrowed from -this Welsh word, which in certain connexions has an initial _d_, but -no doubt it had an independent origin. In Slavonic languages _déd_ is -extensively used for ‘grandfather’ or ‘old man.’ Thus also _deite_, -_teite_ in German dialects. _Tata_ ‘father’ is found in Congo and other -African languages, also (_tatta_) in Negro-English (Surinam). And just -as words for ‘mother’ change their meaning from ‘mother’ to ‘aunt,’ -so these forms in some languages come to mean ‘uncle’: Gr. _theios_ -(whence Italian _zio_), Lithuanian _dede_, Russian _dyadya_. - -With an initial vowel we get the form _atta_, in Greek used in -addressing old people, in Gothic the ordinary word for ‘father,’ which -with a termination added gives the proper name _Attila_, originally -‘little father’; with another ending we have Russian _otec_. Outside -our own family of languages we find, for instance, Magyar _atya_, -Turkish _ata_, Basque _aita_, Greenlandic _a'ta·ta_ ‘father,’ while in -the last-mentioned language _a·ta_ means ‘grandfather.’[28] - -The nurse, too, comes in for her share in these names, as she too -is greeted by the child’s babbling and is tempted to take it as the -child’s name for her; thus we get the German and Scandinavian _amme_, -Polish _niania_, Russian _nyanya_, cf. our _Nanny_. These words cannot -be kept distinct from names for ‘aunt,’ cf. _amita_ above, and in -Sanskrit we find _mama_ for ‘uncle.’ - -It is perhaps more doubtful if we can find a name for the child -itself which has arisen in the same way; the nearest example is the -Engl. _babe_, _baby_, German _bube_ (with _u_ as in _muhme_ above); -but _babe_ has also been explained as a word derived normally from -OFr. _baube_, from Lat. _balbus_ ‘stammering.’ When the name _Bab_ -or _Babs_ (_Babbe_ in a Danish family) becomes the pet-name for a -little girl, this has no doubt come from an interpretation put on her -own meaningless sounds. Ital. _bambo_ (_bambino_) certainly belongs -here. We may here mention also some terms for ‘doll,’ Lat. _pupa_ or -_puppa_, G. _puppe_; with a derivative ending we have Fr. _poupée_, -E. _puppet_ (Chaucer, A 3254, _popelote_). These words have a rich -semantic development, cf. _pupa_ (Dan. _puppe_, etc.) ‘chrysalis,’ -and the diminutive Lat. _pupillus_, _pupilla_, which was used for ‘a -little child, minor,’ whence E. _pupil_ ‘disciple,’ but also for the -little child seen in the eye, whence E. (and other languages) _pupil_, -‘central opening of the eye.’ - -A child has another main interest--that is, in its food, the breast, -the bottle, etc. In many countries it has been observed that very -early a child uses a long _m_ (without a vowel) as a sign that it -wants something, but we can hardly be right in supposing that the -sound is originally meant by children in this sense. They do not use -it consciously till they see that grown-up people on hearing the -sound come up and find out what the child wants. And it is the same -with the developed forms which are uttered by the child in its joy at -getting something to eat, and which are therefore interpreted as the -child’s expression for food: _am_, _mam_, _mammam_, or the same words -with a final _a_--that is, really the same groups of sounds which -came to stand for ‘mother.’ The determination of a particular form to -a particular meaning is always due to the adults, who, however, can -subsequently _teach_ it to the child. Under this heading comes the -sound _ham_, which Taine observed to be one child’s expression for -hunger or thirst (_h_ mute?), and similarly the word _mum_, meaning -‘something to eat,’ invented, as we are told, by Darwin’s son and -often uttered with a rising intonation, as in a question, ‘Will you -give me something to eat?’ Lindner’s child (1.5) is said to have -used _papp_ for everything eatable and _mem_ or _möm_ for anything -drinkable. In normal language we have forms like Sanskrit _māmsa_ -(Gothic _mimz_) and _mās_ ‘flesh,’ our own _meat_ (which formerly, -like Dan. _mad_, meant any kind of food), German _mus_ ‘jam’ (whence -also _gemüse_), and finally Lat. _mandere_ and _manducare_, ‘to chew’ -(whence Fr. _manger_)--all developments of this childish _ma(m)_. - -As the child’s first nourishment is its mother’s breast, its joyous -_mamama_ can also be taken to mean the breast. So we have the Latin -_mamma_ (with a diminutive ending _mammilla_, whence Fr. _mamelle_), -and with the other labial sound Engl. _pap_, Norwegian and Swed. dial. -_pappe_, Lat. _papilla_; with a different vowel, It. _poppa_, Fr. -_poupe_, ‘teat of an animal, formerly also of a woman’; with _b_, G. -_bübbi_, obsolete E. _bubby_; with a dental, E. _teat_ (G. _zitze_), -Ital. _tetta_, Dan. _titte_, Swed. dial. _tatte_. Further we have words -like E. _pap_ ‘soft food,’ Latin _papare_ ‘to eat,’ orig. ‘to suck,’ -and some G. forms for the same, _pappen_, _pampen_, _pampfen_. Perhaps -the beginning of the word _milk_ goes back to the baby’s _ma_ applied -to the mother’s breast or milk; the latter half may then be connected -with Lat. _lac_. In Greenlandic we have _ama·ma_ ‘suckle.’ - -Inseparable from these words is the sound, a long _m_ or _am_, which -expresses the child’s delight over something that tastes good; it has -by-forms in the Scotch _nyam_ or _nyamnyam_, the English seaman’s term -_yam_ ‘to eat,’ and with two dentals the French _nanan_ ‘sweetmeats.’ -Some linguists will have it that the Latin _amo_ ‘I love’ is derived -from this _am_, which expresses pleasurable satisfaction. When a father -tells me that his son (1.10) uses the wonderful words _nananæi_ for -‘chocolate’ and _jajajaja_ for picture-book, we have no doubt here also -a case of a grown person’s interpretation of the originally meaningless -sounds of a child. - -Another meaning that grown-up people may attach to syllables uttered by -the child is that of ‘good-bye,’ as in English _tata_, which has now -been incorporated in the ordinary language.[29] Stern probably is right -when he thinks that the French _adieu_ would not have been accepted -so commonly in Germany and other countries if it had not accommodated -itself so easily, especially in the form commonly used in German, -_ade_, to the child’s natural word. - -There are some words for ‘bed, sleep’ which clearly belong to this -class: Tuscan _nanna_ ‘cradle,’ Sp. _hacer la nana_ ‘go to sleep,’ -E. _bye-bye_ (possibly associated with _good-bye_, instead of which -is also said _byebye_); Stern mentions _baba_ (Berlin), _beibei_ -(Russian), _bobo_ (Malay), but _bischbisch_, which he also gives here, -is evidently (like the Danish _visse_) imitative of the sound used for -hushing. - -Words of this class stand in a way outside the common words of -a language, owing to their origin and their being continually -new-created. One cannot therefore deduce laws of sound-change from -them in their original shape; and it is equally wrong to use them as -evidence for an original kinship between different families of language -and to count them as loan-words, as is frequently done (for example, -when the Slavonic _baba_ is said to be borrowed from Turkish). The -English _papa_ and _mam(m)a_, and the same words in German and Danish, -Italian, etc., are almost always regarded as borrowed from French; but -Cauer rightly points out that Nausikaa (_Odyssey_ 6. 57) addresses her -father as _pappa fil_, and Homer cannot be suspected of borrowing from -French. Still, it is true that fashion may play a part in deciding how -long children may be permitted to say _papa_ and _mamma_, and a French -fashion may in this respect have spread to other European countries, -especially in the seventeenth century. We may not find these words in -early use in the _literatures_ of the different countries, but this -is no proof that the words were not used in the nursery. As soon as a -word of this class has somewhere got a special application, this can -very well pass as a loan-word from land to land--as we saw in the case -of the words _abbot_ and _pope_. And it may be granted with respect -to the primary use of the words that there are certain national or -quasi-national customs which determine what grown people expect to hear -from babies, so that one nation expects and recognizes _papa_, another -_dad_, a third _atta_, for the meaning ‘father.’ - -When the child hands something to somebody or reaches out for something -he will generally say something, and if, as often happens, this is -_ta_ or _da_, it will be taken by its parents and others as a real -word, different according to the language they speak; in England as -_there_ or _thanks_, in Denmark as _tak_ ‘thanks’[30] or _tag_ ‘take,’ -in Germany as _da_ ‘there,’ in France as _tiens_ ‘hold,’ in Russia as -_day_ ‘give,’ in Italy as _to_, (= _togli_) ‘take.’ The form _tê_ in -Homer is interpreted by some as an imperative of _teinō_ ‘stretch.’ -These instances, however, are slightly different in character from -those discussed in the main part of this chapter.[31] - -FOOTNOTES: - -[23] - - Women know - The way to rear up children, (to be just) - They know a simple, merry, tender knack - Of stringing pretty words that make no sense, - And kissing full sense into empty words, - Which things are corals to cut life upon, - Although such trifles: children learn by such - Love’s holy earnest in a pretty play - And get not over-early solemnized ... - Such good do mothers. Fathers love as well - --Mine did, I know--but still with heavier brains, - And wills more consciously responsible, - And not as wisely, since less foolishly. - - ELIZABETH BROWNING: _Aurora Leigh_, 10. - - -[24] This is not the place to speak of the way in which prevalent -methods of teaching foreign languages can be improved. A slavish -copying of the manner in which English children learn English is -impracticable, and if it were practicable it would demand more time -than anyone can devote to the purpose. One has to make the most of -the advantages which the pupils possess over babies, thus, their -being able to read, their power of more sustained attention, etc. -Phonetic explanation of the new sounds and phonetic transcription have -done wonders to overcome difficulties of pronunciation. But in other -respects it is possible to some extent to assimilate the teaching of -a foreign language to the method pursued by the child in its first -years: one should not merely sprinkle the pupil, but plunge him right -down into the sea of language and enable him to swim by himself as -soon as possible, relying on the fact that a great deal will arrange -itself in the brain without the inculcation of too many special rules -and explanations. For details I may refer to my book, _How to Teach a -Foreign Language_ (London, George Allen and Unwin). - -[25] Hence, also, the second or third child in a family will, as a -rule, learn to speak more rapidly than the eldest. - -[26] I translate this from Ido, see _The International Language_, May -1912. - -[27] I have collected a bibliographical list of such ‘secret languages’ -in _Nord. Tidsskrift f. Filologi_, 4r. vol. 5. - -[28] I subjoin a few additional examples. Basque _aita_ ‘father,’ _ama_ -‘mother,’ _anaya_ ‘brother’ (_Zeitsch. f. rom. Phil._ 17, 146). Manchu -_ama_ ‘father,’ _eme_ ‘mother’ (the vowel relation as in _haha_ ‘man,’ -_hehe_ ‘woman,’ Gabelentz, S 389). Kutenai _pa·_ ‘brother’s daughter,’ -_papa_ ‘grandmother (said by male), grandfather, grandson,’ _pat!_ -‘nephew,’ _ma_ ‘mother,’ _nana_ ‘younger sister’ (of girl), _alnana_ -‘sisters,’ _tite_ ‘mother-in-law,’ _titu_ ‘father’ (of male)--(Boas, -_Kutenai Tales_, Bureau of Am. Ethnol. 59, 1918). Cf. also Sapir, -“Kinship Terms of the Kootenay Indians” (_Amer. Anthropologist_, vol. -20). In the same writer’s _Yana Terms of Relationship_ (Univ. of -California, 1918) there seems to be very little from this source. - -[29] _Tata_ is also used for ‘a walk’ (to go out for a ta-ta, or to go -out ta-tas) and for ‘a hat’--meanings that may very well have developed -from the child’s saying these syllables when going out or preparing to -go out. - -[30] The Swede Bolin says that his child said _tatt-tatt_, which he -interprets as _tack_, even when handing something to others. - -[31] The views advanced in § 8 have some points in contact with the -remarks found in Stern’s ch. xix, p. 300, only that I lay more stress -on the arbitrary interpretation of the child’s meaningless syllables on -the part of the grown-ups, and that I cannot approve his theory of the -_m_ syllables as ‘centripetal’ and the _p_ syllables as ‘centrifugal -affective-volitional natural sounds.’ Paul (P § 127) says that the -nursery-language with its _bowwow_, _papa_, _mama_, etc., “is not -the invention of the children; it is handed over to them just as any -other language”; he overlooks the share children have themselves in -these words, or in some of them; nor are they, as he says, formed by -the grown-ups with a purely pedagogical purpose. Nor can I find that -Wundt’s chapter “Angebliche worterfindung des kindes” (S 1. 273-287) -contains decisive arguments. Curtius (K 88) thinks that Gr. _patēr_ -was first shortened into _pâ_ and this then extended into _páppa_--but -certainly it is rather the other way round. - - - - -CHAPTER IX - -THE INFLUENCE OF THE CHILD ON LINGUISTIC DEVELOPMENT - - § 1. Conflicting Views. § 2. Meringer. Analogy. § 3. Herzog’s - Theory of Sound Changes. § 4. Gradual Shiftings. § 5. Leaps. § 6. - Assimilations, etc. § 7. Stump-words. - - -IX.--§ 1. Conflicting Views. - -We all know that in historical times languages have been constantly -changing, and we have much indirect evidence that in prehistoric -times they did the same thing. But when it is asked if these changes, -unavoidable as they seem to be, are to be ascribed primarily to -children and their defective imitation of the speech of their elders, -or if children’s language in general plays no part at all in the -history of language, we find linguists expressing quite contrary views, -without the question having ever been really thoroughly investigated. - -Some hold that the child acquires its language with such perfection -that it cannot be held responsible for the changes recorded in the -history of languages: others, on the contrary, hold that the most -important source of these changes is to be found in the transmission -of the language to new generations. How undecided the attitude even -of the foremost linguists may be towards the question is perhaps best -seen in the views expressed at different times by Sweet. In 1882 he -reproaches Paul with paying attention only to the shiftings going on -in the pronunciation of the same individual, and not acknowledging -“the much more potent cause of change which exists in the fact that -one generation can learn the sounds of the preceding one by imitation -only. It is an open question whether the modifications made by the -individual in a sound he has once learnt, independently of imitation -of those around him, are not too infinitesimal to have any appreciable -effect” (CP 153). In the same spirit he asserted in 1899 that the -process of learning our own language in childhood is a very slow one, -“and the results are always imperfect.... If languages were learnt -perfectly by the children of each generation, then languages would not -change: English children would still speak a language as old at least -as ‘Anglo-Saxon,’ and there would be no such languages as French and -Italian. The changes in languages are simply slight mistakes, which -in the course of generations completely alter the character of the -language” (PS 75). But only one year later, in 1900, he maintains that -the child’s imitation “is in most cases practically perfect”--“the -main cause of sound-change must therefore be sought elsewhere. The -real cause of sound-change seems to be organic shifting--failure -to hit the mark, the result either of carelessness or sloth ... a -slight deviation from the pronunciation learnt in infancy may easily -pass unheeded, especially by those who make the same change in -their own pronunciation” (H 19 f.). By the term “organic shifting” -Sweet evidently, as seen from his preface, meant shifting in the -pronunciation of the adult, thus a modification of the sound learnt -‘perfectly’ in childhood. Paul, who in the first edition (1880) of his -_Prinzipien der Sprachgeschichte_ did not mention the influence of -children, in all the following editions (2nd, 1886, p. 58; 3rd, 1898, -p. 58; 4th, 1909, p. 63) expressly says that “die hauptveranlassung zum -lautwandel in der übertragung der laute auf neue individuen liegt,” -while the shiftings within the same generation are very slight. Paul -thus modified his view in the opposite direction of Sweet[32]--and did -so under the influence of Sweet’s criticism of his own first view! - -When one finds scholars expressing themselves in this manner and giving -hardly any reasons for their views, one is tempted to believe that the -question is perhaps insoluble, that it is a mere toss-up, or that in -the sentence “children’s imitation is nearly perfect” the stress may be -laid, according to taste, now on the word _nearly_, and now on the word -_perfect_. I am, however, convinced that we can get a little farther, -though only by breaking up the question, instead of treating it as one -vague and indeterminate whole. - - -IX.--§ 2. Meringer. Analogy. - -Among recent writers Meringer has gone furthest into the question, -adhering in the main to the general view that, just as in other -fields, social, economic, etc., it is grown-up men who take the -lead in new developments, so it is grown-up men, and not women or -children, who carry things forward in the field of language. In one -place he justifies his standpoint by a reference to a special case, -and I will take this as the starting-point of my own consideration -of the question. He says: “It can be shown by various examples that -they [changes in language] are decidedly not due to children. In -Ionic, Attic and Lesbian Greek the words for ‘hundreds’ are formed in -_-kosioi_ (_diakósioi_, etc.), while elsewhere (in Doric and Bœotian) -they appear as _-kátioi_. How does the _o_ arise in _-kósioi_? It is -generally said that it comes from _o_ in the ‘tens’ in the termination -_-konta_. Can it be children who have formed the words for hundreds -on the model of the words for tens, children under six years old, who -are just learning to talk? Such children generally have other things -to attend to than to practise themselves in numerals above a hundred.” -Similar formations are adduced from Latin, and it is stated that the -personal pronouns are especially subject to change, but children do not -use the personal pronouns till an age when they are already in firm -possession of the language. Meringer then draws the conclusion that the -share which children take in bringing about linguistic change is a very -small one. - -Now, I should like first to remark that even if it is possible to -point to certain changes in language which cannot be ascribed to -little children, this proves nothing with regard to the very numerous -changes which lie outside these limits. And next, that all the cases -here mentioned are examples of formation by analogy. But from the very -nature of the case, the conditions requisite for the occurrence of such -formations are exactly the same in the case of adults and in that of -the children. For what are the conditions? Some one feels an impulse to -express something, and at the moment has not got the traditional form -at command, and so is driven to evolve a form of his own from the rest -of the linguistic material. It makes no difference whether he has never -heard a form used by other people which expresses what he wants, or -whether he has heard the traditional form, but has not got it ready at -hand at the moment. The method of procedure is exactly the same whether -it takes place in a three-year-old or in an eighty-three-year-old -brain: it is therefore senseless to put the question whether formations -by analogy are or are not due to children. A formation by analogy is -by definition a non-traditional form. It is therefore idle to ask if -it is due to the fact that the language is transmitted from generation -to generation and to the child’s imperfect repetition of what has been -transmitted to it, and Meringer’s argument thus breaks down in every -respect. - -It must not, of course, be overlooked that children naturally come to -invent more formations by analogy than grown-up people, because the -latter in many cases have heard the older forms so often that they find -a place in their speech without any effort being required to recall -them. But that does not touch the problem under discussion; besides, -formations by analogy are unavoidable and indispensable, in the talk of -all, even of the most ‘grown-up’: one cannot, indeed, move in language -without having recourse to forms and constructions that are not -directly and fully transmitted to us: speech is not alone reproduction, -but just as much new-production, because no situation and no impulse to -communication is in every detail exactly the same as what has occurred -on earlier occasions. - - -IX.--§ 3. Herzog’s Theory of Sound Changes. - -If, leaving the field of analogical changes, we begin to inquire -whether the purely phonetic changes can or must be ascribed to the fact -that a new generation has to learn the mother-tongue by imitation, we -shall first have to examine an interesting theory in which the question -is answered in the affirmative, at least with regard to those phonetic -changes which are gradual and not brought about all at once; thus, -when in one particular language one vowel, say [e·], is pronounced -more and more closely till finally it becomes [i·], as has happened -in E. _see_, formerly pronounced [se·] with the same vowel as in G. -_see_, now [si·]. E. Herzog maintains that such changes happen through -transference to new generations, even granted that the children imitate -the sound of the grown-up people perfectly. For, it is said, children -with their little mouths cannot produce acoustically the same sound -as adults, except by a different position of the speech-organs; this -position they keep for the rest of their lives, so that when they -are grown-up and their mouth is of full size they produce a rather -different sound from that previously heard--which altered sound is -again imitated by the next generation with yet another position of the -organs, and so on. This continuous play of generation _v._ generation -may be illustrated in this way: - - ARTICULATION _corresponding to_ SOUND. - - 1st generation { young A1 S1 - { old A1 S2 - - 2nd generation { young A2 S2 - { old A2 S3 - - 3rd generation { young A3 S3 - { old A3 S4, etc.[33] - -It is, however, easy to prove that this theory cannot be correct. (1) -It is quite certain that the increase in size of the mouth is far -less important than is generally supposed (see my _Fonetik_, p. 379 -ff., PhG, p. 80 ff.; cf. above, V § 1). (2) It cannot be proved that -people, after once learning one definite way of producing a sound, go -on producing it in exactly the same way, even if the acoustic result -is a different one. It is much more probable that each individual is -constantly adapting himself to the sounds heard from those around him, -even if this adaptation is neither as quick nor perhaps as perfect -as that of children, who can very rapidly accommodate their speech -to the dialect of new surroundings: if very far-reaching changes are -rare in the case of grown-up people, this proves nothing against such -small adaptations as are here presupposed. In favour of the continual -regulation of the sound through the ear may be adduced the fact that -adults who become perfectly deaf and thus lose the control of sounds -through hearing may come to speak in such a way that their words -can hardly be understood by others. (3) The theory in question also -views the relations between successive generations in a way that is -far removed from the realities of life: from the wording one might -easily imagine that there were living together at any given time only -individuals of ages separated by, say, thirty years’ distance, while -the truth of the matter is that a child is normally surrounded by -people of all ages and learns its language more or less from all of -them, from Grannie down to little Dick from over the way, and that (as -has already been remarked) its chief teachers are its own brothers and -sisters and other playmates of about the same age as itself. If the -theory were correct, there would at any rate be a marked difference -in vowel-sounds between anyone and his grandfather, or, still more, -great-grandfather: but nothing of the kind has ever been described. -(4) The chief argument, however, against the theory is this, that -were it true, then all shiftings of sounds at all times and in all -languages would proceed in exactly the same direction. But this is -emphatically contradicted by the history of language. The long _a_ -in English in one period was rounded and raised into _o_, as in OE. -_stan_, _na_, _ham_, which have become _stone_, _no_, _home_; but when -a few centuries later new long _a_’s had entered the language, they -followed the opposite direction towards _e_, now [ei], as in _name_, -_male_, _take_. Similarly in Danish, where an old stratum of long _a_’s -have become _å_, as in _ål_, _gås_, while a later stratum tends rather -towards [æ], as in the present pronunciation of _gade_, _hale_, etc. -At the same time the long _a_ in Swedish tends towards the rounded -pronunciation (cf. Fr. _âme_, _pas_): in one sister language we thus -witness a repetition of the old shifting, in the other a tendency in -the opposite direction. And it is the same with all those languages -which we can pursue far enough back: they all present the same picture -of varying vowel shiftings in different directions, which is totally -incompatible with Herzog’s view. - - -IX.--§ 4. Gradual Shiftings. - -We shall do well to put aside such artificial theories and look soberly -at the facts. When some sounds in one century go one way, and in -another, another, while at times they remain long unchanged, it all -rests on this, that for human habits of this sort there is no standard -measure. Set a man to saw a hundred logs, measuring No. 2 by No. 1, -No. 3 by No. 2, and so on, and you will see considerable deviations -from the original measure--perhaps all going in the same direction, so -that No. 100 is very much longer than No. 1 as the result of the sum -of a great many small deviations--perhaps all going in the opposite -direction; but it is also possible that in a certain series he was -inclined to make the logs too long, and in the next series too short, -the two sets of deviations about balancing one another. - -It is much the same with the formation of speech sounds: at one moment, -for some reason or other, in a particular mood, in order to lend -authority or distinction to our words, we may happen to lower the jaw a -little more, or to thrust the tongue a little more forward than usual, -or inversely, under the influence of fatigue or laziness, or to sneer -at someone else, or because we have a cigar or potato in our mouth, -the movements of the jaw or of the tongue may fall short of what they -usually are. We have all the while a sort of conception of an average -pronunciation, of a normal degree of opening or of protrusion, which -we aim at, but it is nothing very fixed, and the only measure at our -disposal is that we are or are not understood. What is understood is -all right: what does not meet this requirement must be repeated with -greater correctness as an answer to ‘I beg your pardon?’ - -Everyone thinks that he talks to-day just as he did yesterday, and, -of course, he does so in nearly every point. But no one knows if he -pronounces his mother-tongue in every respect in the same manner as he -did twenty years ago. May we not suppose that what happens with faces -happens here also? One lives with a friend day in and day out, and -he appears to be just what he was years ago, but someone who returns -home after a long absence is at once struck by the changes which have -gradually accumulated in the interval. - -Changes in the sounds of a language are not, indeed, so rapid as -those in the appearance of an individual, for the simple reason -that it is not enough for one man to alter his pronunciation, many -must co-operate: the social nature and social aim of language has -the natural consequence that all must combine in the same movement, -or else one neutralizes the changes introduced by the other; each -individual also is continually under the influence of his fellows, and -involuntarily fashions his pronunciation according to the impression -he is constantly receiving of other people’s sounds. But as regards -those little gradual shiftings of sounds which take place in spite of -all this control and its conservative influence, changes in which the -sound and the articulation alter simultaneously, I cannot see that -the transmission of the language to a new generation need exert any -essential influence: we may imagine them being brought about equally -well in a society which for hundreds of years consisted of the same -adults who never died and had no issue. - - -IX.--§ 5. Leaps. - -While in the shiftings mentioned in the last paragraphs articulation -and acoustic impression went side by side, it is different with -some shiftings in which the old sound and the new resemble one -another to the ear, but differ in the position of the organs and the -articulations. For instance, when [þ] as in E. _thick_ becomes [f] -and [ð] as in E. _mother_ becomes [v], one can hardly conceive the -change taking place in the pronunciation of people who have learnt the -right sound as children. It is very natural, on the other hand, that -children should imitate the harder sound by giving the easier, which -is very like it, and which they have to use in many other words: forms -like _fru_ for _through_, _wiv_, _muvver_ for _with_, _mother_, are -frequent in the mouths of children long before they begin to make their -appearance in the speech of adults, where they are now beginning to -be very frequent in the Cockney dialect. (Cf. MEG i. 13. 9.) The same -transition is met with in Old Fr., where we have _muef_ from _modu_, -_nif_ from _nidu_, _fief_ from _feodu_, _seif_, now _soif_, from -_site_, _estrif_ (E. _strife_) from _stridh_, _glaive_ from _gladiu_, -_parvis_ from _paradis_, and possibly _avoutre_ from _adulteru_, -_poveir_, now _pouvoir_, from _potere_. In Old Gothonic we have the -transition from _þ_ to _f_ before _l_, as in Goth. _þlaqus_ = MHG. -_vlach_, Goth. _þlaihan_ = OHG. _flêhan_, _þliuhan_ = OHG. _fliohan_; -cf. also E. _file_, G. _feile_ = ON. _þēl_, OE. _þengel_ and _fengel_ -‘prince,’ and probably G. _finster_, cf. OHG. _dinstar_ (with _d_ from -_þ_), OE. _þeostre_. In Latin we have the same transition, e.g. in -_fumus_, corresponding to Sansk. _dhumás_, Gr. _thumós_.[34] - -The change from the back-open consonant [x]--the sound in G. _buch_ -and Scotch _loch_--to _f_, which has taken place in _enough_, _cough_, -etc., is of the same kind. Here clearly we have no gradual passage, -but a jump, which could hardly take place in the case of those who -had already learnt how to pronounce the back sound, but is easily -conceivable as a case of defective imitation on the part of a new -generation. I suppose that the same remark holds good with regard to -the change from _kw_ to _p_, which is found in some languages, for -instance, Gr. _hippos_, corresponding to Lat. _equus_, Gr. _hepomai_ -= Lat. _sequor_, _hêpar_ = Lat. _jecur_; Rumanian _apa_ from Lat. -_aqua_, Welsh _map_, ‘son’ = Gaelic _mac_, _pedwar_ = Ir. _cathir_, -‘four,’ etc. In France I have heard children say [pizin] and [pidin] -for _cuisine_. - - -IX.--§ 6. Assimilations, etc. - -There is an important class of sound changes which have this in common -with the class just treated, that the changes take place suddenly, -without an intermediate stage being possible, as in the changes -considered in IX § 4. I refer to those cases of assimilation, loss of -consonants in heavy groups and transposition (metathesis), with which -students of language are familiar in all languages. Instances abound in -the speech of all children; see above, V § 4. - -If now we dared to assert that such pronunciations are never heard -from people who have passed their babyhood, we should here have found -a field in which children have exercised a great influence on the -development of language: but of course we cannot say anything of the -sort. Any attentive observer can testify to the frequency of such -mispronunciations in the speech of grown-up people. In many cases they -are noticed neither by the speaker nor by the hearer, in many they -may be noticed, but are considered too unimportant to be corrected, -and finally, in some cases the speaker stops to repeat what he wanted -to say in a corrected form. Now it would not obviously do, from their -frequency in adult speech, to draw the inference: “These changes are -not to be ascribed to children,” because from their frequent appearance -on the lips of the children one could equally well infer: “They are not -to be ascribed to grown-up people.” When we find in Latin _impotens_ -and _immeritus_ with _m_ side by side with _indignus_ and _insolitus_ -with _n_, or when English _handkerchief_ is pronounced with [ŋk] -instead of the original [ndk], the change is not to be charged against -children or grown-up people exclusively, but against both parties -together: and so when _t_ is lost in _waistcoat_ [weskət], or _postman_ -or _castle_, or _k_ in _asked_. There is certainly this difference, -that when the change is made by older people, we get in the speech of -the same individual first the heavier and then the easier form, while -the child may take up the easier pronunciation first, because it hears -the [n] before a lip consonant as [m], and before a back consonant as -[ŋ], or because it fails altogether to hear the middle consonant in -_waistcoat_, _postman_, _castle_ and _asked_. But all this is clearly -of purely theoretical interest, and the result remains that the -influence of the two classes, adults and children, cannot possibly be -separated in this domain.[35] - - -IX.--§ 7. Stump-words. - -Next we come to those changes which result in what one may call -‘stump-words.’ There is no doubt that words may undergo violent -shortenings both by children and adults, but here I believe we can more -or less definitely distinguish between their respective contributions -to the development of language. If it is the end of the word that -is kept, while the beginning is dropped, it is probable that the -mutilation is due to children, who, as we have seen (VII § 7), echo the -conclusion of what is said to them and forget the beginning or fail -altogether to apprehend it. So we get a number of mutilated Christian -names, which can then be used by grown-up people as pet-names. Examples -are _Bert_ for Herbert or Albert, _Bella_ for Arabella, _Sander_ -for Alexander, _Lottie_ for Charlotte, _Trix_ for Beatrix, and with -childlike sound-substitution _Bess_ (and _Bet_, _Betty_) for Elizabeth. -Similarly in other languages, from Danish I may mention _Bine_ for -Jakobine, _Line_ for Karoline, _Stine_ for Kristine, _Dres_ for Andres: -there are many others. - -If this way of shortening a word is natural to a child who hears the -word for the first time and is not able to remember the beginning when -he comes to the end of it, it is quite different when others clip words -which they know perfectly well: they will naturally keep the beginning -and stop before they are half through the word, as soon as they are -sure that their hearers understand what is alluded to. Dr. Johnson -was not the only one who “had a way of contracting the names of his -friends, as Beauclerc, _Beau_; Boswell, _Bozzy_; Langton, _Lanky_; -Murphy, _Mur_; Sheridan, _Sherry_; and Goldsmith, _Goldy_, which -Goldsmith resented” (Boswell, _Life_, ed. P. Fitzgerald, 1900, i. -486). Thackeray constantly says _Pen_ for Arthur Pendennis, _Cos_ for -Costigan, _Fo_ for Foker, _Pop_ for Popjoy, _old Col_ for Colchicum. -In the beginning of the last century Napoleon Bonaparte was generally -called _Nap_ or _Boney_; later we have such shortened names of public -characters as _Dizzy_ for Disraeli, _Pam_ for Palmerston, _Labby_ -for Labouchere, etc. These evidently are due to adults, and so are a -great many other clippings, some of which have completely ousted the -original long words, such as _mob_ for mobile, _brig_ for brigantine, -_fad_ for fadaise, _cab_ for cabriolet, _navvy_ for navigator, -while others are still felt as abbreviations, such as _photo_ for -photograph, _pub_ for public-house, _caps_ for capital letters, _spec_ -for speculation, _sov_ for sovereign, _zep_ for Zeppelin, _divvy_ for -dividend, _hip_ for hypochondria, _the Cri_ and _the Pavvy_ for the -Criterion and the Pavilion, and many other clippings of words which -are evidently far above the level of very small children. The same is -true of the abbreviations in which school and college slang abounds, -words like _Gym_(nastics), _undergrad_(uate), _trig_(onometry), -_lab_(oratory), _matric_(ulation), _prep_(aration), _the Guv_ for the -governor, etc. The same remark is true of similar clippings in other -languages, such as _kilo_ for kilogram, G. _ober_ for oberkellner, -French _aristo_(crate), _réac_(tionnaire), college terms like _desse_ -for descriptive (géométrie d.), _philo_ for philosophie, _preu_ for -premier, _seu_ for second; Danish numerals like _tres_ for tresindstyve -(60), _halvfjerds_(indstyve), _firs_(indstyve). We are certainly -justified in extending the principle that abbreviation through throwing -away the end of the word is due to those who have previously mastered -the full form, to the numerous instances of shortened Christian names -like _Fred_ for Frederick, _Em_ for Emily, _Alec_ for Alexander, _Di_ -for Diana, _Vic_ for Victoria, etc. In other languages we find similar -clippings of names more or less carried through systematically, e.g. -Greek _Zeuxis_ for Zeuxippos, Old High German _Wolfo_ for Wolfbrand, -Wolfgang, etc., Icelandic _Sigga_ for Sigríðr, _Siggi_ for Sigurðr, etc. - -I see a corroboration of my theory in the fact that there are hardly -any _family_ names shortened by throwing away the beginning: children -as a rule have no use for family names.[36] The rule, however, is -not laid down as absolute, but only as holding in the main. Some of -the exceptions are easily accounted for. _’Cello_ for violoncello -undoubtedly is an adults’ word, originating in France or Italy: but -here evidently it would not do to take the beginning, for then there -would be confusion with violin (violon). _Phone_ for telephone: the -beginning might just as well stand for telegraph. _Van_ for caravan: -here the beginning would be identical with _car_. _Bus_, which made -its appearance immediately after the first omnibus was started in -the streets of London (1829), probably was thought expressive of the -sound of these vehicles and suggested _bustle_. But _bacco_ (_baccer_, -_baccy_) for tobacco and _taters_ for potatoes belong to a different -sphere altogether: they are not clippings of the usual sort, but purely -phonetic developments, in which the first vowel has been dropped in -rapid pronunciation (as in _I s’pose_), and the initial voiceless stop -has then become inaudible; Dickens similarly writes _’tickerlerly_ as -a vulgar pronunciation of particularly.[37] - -FOOTNOTES: - -[32] The same inconsistency is found in Dauzat, who in 1910 thought -that nothing, and in 1912 that nearly everything, was due to imperfect -imitation by the child (V 22 ff., Ph 53, cf. 3). Wechssler (L p. 86) -quotes passages from Bremer, Passy, Rousselot and Wallensköld, in which -the chief cause of sound changes is attributed to the child; to these -might be added Storm (_Phonetische Studien_, 5. 200) and A. Thomson (IF -24, 1909, p. 9), probably also Grammont (_Mél. linguist._ 61). Many -writers seem to imagine that the question is settled when they are able -to adduce a certain number of _parallel_ changes in the pronunciation -of some child and in the historical evolution of languages. - -[33] See E. Herzog, _Streitfragen der roman. philologie_, i. (1904), p. -57--I modify his symbols a little. - -[34] In Russian _Marfa_, _Fyodor_, etc., we also have _f_ corresponding -to original _þ_, but in this case it is not a transition within one -and the same language, but an imperfect imitation on the part of the -(adult!) Russians of a sound in a foreign language (Greek _th_) which -was not found in their own language. - -[35] Reduplications and assimilations at a distance, as in Fr. _tante_ -from the older _ante_ (whence E. _aunt_, from Lat. _amita_) and -_porpentine_ (frequent in this and analogous forms in Elizabethan -writers) for _porcupine_ (_porkepine_, _porkespine_) are different from -the ordinary assimilations of neighbouring sounds in occurring much -less frequently in the speech of adults than in children; cf., however, -below, Ch. XV 4. - -[36] Karl Sundén, in his diligent and painstaking book on _Elliptical -Words in Modern English_ (Upsala, 1904) [i.e. clipped proper names, for -common names are not treated in the long lists given], mentions only -two examples of surnames in which the final part is kept (_Bart_ for -Islebart, _Piggy_ for Guineapig, from obscure novels), though he has -scores of examples in which the beginning is preserved. - -[37] It is often said that stress is decisive of what part is left out -in word-clippings, and from an a priori point of view this is what -we should expect. But as a matter of fact we find in many instances -that syllables with weak stress are preserved, e.g. in _Mac_(donald), -_Pen_(dennis), the _Cri_, _Vic_, _Nap_, _Nat_ for Nathaniel (orig. -pronounced with [t], not [þ]), _Val_ for Percival, _Trix_, etc. The -middle is never kept as such with omission of the beginning and the -ending; _Liz_ (whence _Lizzy_) has not arisen at one stroke from -Elizabeth, but mediately through _Eliz_. Some of the adults’ clippings -originate through abbreviations in _writing_, thus probably most of the -college terms (_exam_, _trig_, etc.), thus also journalists’ clippings -like _ad_ for advertisement, _par_ for paragraph; cf. also _caps_ for -capitals. On stump-words see also below, Ch. XIV, §§ 8 and 9. - - - - -CHAPTER X - -THE INFLUENCE OF THE CHILD--_continued_ - - § 1. Confusion of Words. § 2. Metanalysis. § 3. Shiftings of - Meanings. § 4. Differentiations. § 5. Summary. § 6. Indirect - Influence. § 7. New Languages. - - -X.--§ 1. Confusion of Words. - -Some of the most typical childish sound-substitutions can hardly be -supposed to leave any traces in language as permanently spoken, because -they are always thoroughly corrected by the children themselves at an -early age; among these I reckon the almost universal pronunciation of -_t_ instead of _k_. When, therefore, we do find that in some words -a _t_ has taken the place of an earlier _k_, we must look for some -more specific cause of the change: but this may, in some cases at any -rate, be found in a tendency of children’s speech which is totally -independent of the inability to pronounce the sound of _k_ at an -early age, and is, indeed, in no way to be reckoned among phonetic -tendencies, namely, the confusion resulting from an association of -two words of similar sound (cf. above, p. 122). This, I take it, is -the explanation of the word _mate_ in the sense ‘husband or wife,’ -which has replaced the earlier _make_: a confusion was here natural, -because the word _mate_, ‘companion,’ was similar not only in sound, -but also in signification. The older name for the ‘soft roe’ of fishes -was _milk_ (as Dan. _mælk_, G. _milch_), but from the fifteenth -century _milt_ has been substituted for it, as if it were the same -organ as the _milt_, ‘the spleen.’ Children will associate words of -similar sound even in cases where there is no connecting link in their -significations; thus we have _bat_ for earlier _bak_, _bakke_ (the -animal, _vespertilio_), though the other word _bat_, ‘a stick,’ is far -removed in sense. - -I think we must explain the following cases of isolated -sound-substitution as due to the same confusion with unconnected -words in the minds of children hearing the new words for the first -time: _trunk_ in the sense of ‘proboscis of an elephant,’ formerly -_trump_, from Fr. _trompe_, confused with _trunk_, ‘stem of a tree’; -_stark-naked_, formerly _start-naked_, from _start_, ‘tail,’ confused -with _stark_, ‘stiff’; _vent_, ‘air-hole,’ from Fr. _fente_, confused -with _vent_, ‘breath’ (for this _v_ cannot be due to the Southern -dialectal transition from _f_, as in _vat_ from _fat_, for that -transition does not, as a rule, take place in French loans); _cocoa_ -for _cacao_, confused with _coconut_; _match_, from Fr. _mèche_, by -confusion with the other _match_; _chine_, ‘rim of cask,’ from _chime_, -cf. G. _kimme_, ‘border,’ confused with _chine_, ‘backbone.’ I give -some of these examples with a little diffidence, though I have no doubt -of the general principle of childish confusion of unrelated words as -one of the sources of irregularities in the development of sounds. - -These substitutions cannot of course be separated from instances -of ‘popular etymology,’ as when the phrase _to curry favour_ was -substituted for the former _to curry favel_, where _favel_ means ‘a -fallow horse,’ as the type of fraud or duplicity (cf. G. _den fahlen -hengst reiten_, ‘to act deceitfully,’ _einen auf einem fahlen pferde -ertappen_, ‘to catch someone lying’). - - -X.--§ 2. Metanalysis. - -We now come to the phenomenon for which I have ventured to coin the -term ‘metanalysis,’ by which I mean that words or word-groups are by -a new generation analyzed differently from the analysis of a former -age. Each child has to find out for himself, in hearing the connected -speech of other people, where one word ends and the next one begins, -or what belongs to the kernel and what to the ending of a word, etc. -(VII § 6). In most cases he will arrive at the same analysis as the -former generation, but now and then he will put the boundaries in -another place than formerly, and the new analysis may become general. -_A naddre_ (the ME. form for OE. _an nædre_) thus became _an adder_, -_a napron_ became _an apron_, _an nauger_: _an auger_, _a numpire_: -_an umpire_; and in psychologically the same way _an ewte_ (older -form _evete_, OE. _efete_) became _a newt_: metanalysis accordingly -sometimes shortens and sometimes lengthens a word. _Riding_ as a name -of one of the three districts of Yorkshire is due to a metanalysis -of _North Thriding_ (ON. _þriðjungr_, ‘third part’), as well as of -_East Thriding_, _West Thriding_, after the sound of _th_ had been -assimilated to the preceding _t_. - -One of the most frequent forms of metanalysis consists in the -subtraction of an _s_, which originally belonged to the kernel of a -word, but is mistaken for the plural ending; in this way we have _pea_ -instead of the earlier _peas_, _pease_, _cherry_ for ME. _cherris_, Fr. -_cerise_, _asset_ from _assets_, Fr. _assez_, etc. Cf. also the vulgar -_Chinee_, _Portuguee_, etc.[38] - -The influence of a new generation is also seen in those cases in which -formerly separate words coalesce into one, as when _he breakfasts_, _he -breakfasted_, is said instead of _he breaks fast_, _he broke fast_; cf. -_vouchsafe_, _don_ (third person, _vouchsafes_, _dons_), instead of -_vouch safe_, _do on_ (third person, _vouches safe_, _does on_). Here, -too, it is not probable that a person who has once learnt the real form -of a word, and thus knows where it begins and where it ends, should -have subsequently changed it: it is much more likely that all such -changes originate with children who have once made a wrong analysis of -what they have heard and then go on repeating the new forms all their -lives. - - -X.--§ 3. Shiftings of Meanings. - -Changes in the meaning of words are often so gradual that one cannot -detect the different steps of the process, and changes of this sort, -like the corresponding changes in the sounds of words, are to be -ascribed quite as much to people already acquainted with the language -as to the new generation. As examples we may mention the laxity that -has changed the meaning of _soon_, which in OE. meant ‘at once,’ and in -the same way of _presently_, originally ‘at present, now,’ and of the -old _anon_. _Dinner_ comes from OF. _disner_, which is the infinitive -of the verb which in other forms was _desjeun_, whence modern French -_déjeune_ (Lat. *_desjejunare_); it thus meant ‘breakfast,’ but the -hour of the meal thus termed was gradually shifted in the course of -centuries, so that now we may have dinner twelve hours after breakfast. -When _picture_, which originally meant ‘painting,’ came to be applied -to drawings, photographs and other images; when _hard_ came to be used -as an epithet not only of nuts and stones, etc., but of words and -labour; when _fair_, besides the old sense of ‘beautiful,’ acquired -those of ‘blond’ and ‘morally just’; when _meat_, from meaning all -kinds of food (as in _sweetmeats_, _meat and drink_), came to be -restricted practically to one kind of food (butcher’s meat); when the -verb _grow_, which at first was used only of plants, came to be used of -animals, hairs, nails, feelings, etc., and, instead of implying always -increase, might even be combined with such a predicative as _smaller -and smaller_; when _pretty_, from the meaning ‘skilful, ingenious,’ -came to be a general epithet of approval (cf. the modern American, _a -cunning child_ = ‘sweet’), and, besides meaning good-looking, became -an adverb of degree, as in _pretty bad_: neither these nor countless -similar shiftings need be ascribed to any influence on the part of the -learners of English; they can easily be accounted for as the product of -innumerable small extensions and restrictions on the part of the users -of the language after they have once acquired it. - -But along with changes of this sort we have others that have come -about with a leap, and in which it is impossible to find intermediate -stages between two seemingly heterogeneous meanings, as when _bead_, -from meaning a ‘prayer,’ comes to mean ‘a perforated ball of glass or -amber.’ In these cases the change is occasioned by certain connexions, -where the whole sense can only be taken in one way, but the syntactical -construction admits of various interpretations, so that an ambiguity -at one point gives occasion for a new conception of the meaning of -the word. The phrase _to count your beads_ originally meant ‘to count -your prayers,’ but because the prayers were reckoned by little balls, -the word _beads_ came to be transferred to these objects, and lost its -original sense.[39] It seems clear that this misapprehension could not -take place in the brains of those who had already associated the word -with the original signification, while it was quite natural on the -part of children who heard and understood the phrase as a whole, but -unconsciously analyzed it differently from the previous generation. - -There is another word which also meant ‘prayer’ originally, but has -lost that meaning, viz. _boon_; through such phrases as ‘ask a boon’ -and ‘grant a boon’ it came to be taken as meaning ‘a favour’ or ‘a good -thing received.’ - -_Orient_ was frequently used in such connexions as ‘orient pearl’ and -‘orient gem,’ and as these were lustrous, _orient_ became an adjective -meaning ‘shining,’ without any connexion with the geographical orient, -as in Shakespeare, _Venus_ 981, “an orient drop” (a tear), and Milton, -PL i. 546, “Ten thousand banners rise into the air, With orient colours -waving.” - -There are no connecting links between the meanings of ‘glad’ and -‘obliged,’ ‘forced,’ but when _fain_ came to be chiefly used in -combinations like ‘he was fain to leave the country,’ it was natural -for the younger generation to interpret the whole phrase as implying -necessity instead of gladness. - -We have similar phenomena in certain syntactical changes. When _me -thinks_ and _me likes_ gave place to _I think_ and _I like_, the -chief cause of the change was that the child heard combinations like -_Mother thinks_ or _Father likes_, where _mother_ and _father_ can be -either nominative or accusative-dative, and the construction is thus -syntactically ambiguous. This leads to a ‘shunting’ of the meaning -as well as of the construction of the verbs, which must have come -about in a new brain which was not originally acquainted with the old -construction. - -As one of the factors bringing about changes in meaning many scholars -mention forgetfulness; but it is important to keep in view that what -happens is not real forgetting, that is, snapping of threads of thought -that had already existed within the same consciousness, but the fact -that the new individual never develops the threads of thought which -in the elder generation bound one word to another. Sometimes there is -no connexion of ideas in the child’s brain: a word is viewed quite -singly as a whole and isolated, till later perhaps it is seen in its -etymological relation. A little girl of six asked when she was born. -“You were born on the 2nd of October.” “Why, then, I was born on my -birthday!” she cried, her eyes beaming with joy at this wonderfully -happy coincidence. Originally _Fare well_ was only said to some one -going away. If now the departing guest says _Farewell_ to his friend -who is staying at home, it can only be because the word _Farewell_ has -been conceived as a fixed formula, without any consciousness of the -meaning of its parts. - -Sometimes, on the other hand, new connexions of thought arise, as when -we associate the word _bound_ with _bind_ in the phrase ‘he is bound -for America.’ Our ancestors meant ‘he is ready to go’ (ON. _búinn_, -‘ready’), not ‘he is under an obligation to go.’ The establishment -of new associations of this kind seems naturally to take place at -the moment when the young mind makes acquaintance with the word: the -phenomenon is, of course, closely related to “popular etymology” (see -Ch. VI § 6). - - -X.--§ 4. Differentiations. - -Linguistic ‘splittings’ or differentiations, whereby one word becomes -two, may also be largely due to the transmission of the language to a -new generation. The child may hear two pronunciations of the same word -from different people, and then associate these with different ideas. -Thus Paul Passy learnt the word _meule_ in the sense of ‘grindstone’ -from his father, and in the sense of ‘haycock’ from his mother; now the -former in both senses pronounced [mœl], and the latter in both [mø·l], -and the child thus came to distinguish [mœl] ‘grindstone’ and [mø·l] -‘haycock’ (Ch 23). - -Or the child may have learnt the word at two different periods of its -life, associated with different spheres. This, I take it, may be the -reason why some speakers make a distinction between two pronunciations -of the word _medicine_, in two and in three syllables: they take -[medsin], but study [medisin]. - -Finally, the child can itself split words. A friend writes: “I remember -that when a schoolboy said that it was a good thing that the new -Headmaster was Dr. Wood, because he would then know when boys were -‘shamming,’ a schoolfellow remarked, ‘Wasn’t it funny? He did not know -the difference between Doct_or_ and Doct_er_.’” In Danish the Japanese -are indiscriminately called either _Japanerne_ or _Japaneserne_; now, I -once overheard my boy (6.10) lecturing his playfellows: “_Japaneserne_, -that is the soldiers of Japan, but _Japanerne_, that is students -and children and such-like.” It is, of course, possible that he may -have heard one form originally when shown some pictures of Japanese -soldiers, and the other on another occasion, and that this may have -been the reason for his distinction. However this may be, I do not -doubt that a number of differentiations of words are to be ascribed -to the transmission of the language to a new generation. Others may -have arisen in the speech of adults, such as the distinction between -_off_ and _of_ (at first the stressed and unstressed form of the same -preposition), or between _thorough_ and _through_ (the former is still -used as a preposition in Shakespeare: “thorough bush, thorough brier”). -But complete differentiation is not established till some individuals -from the very first conceive the forms as two independent words. - - -X.--§ 5. Summary. - -Instead of saying, as previous writers on these questions have done, -either that children have no influence or that they have the chief -influence on the development of language, it will be seen that I -have divided the question into many, going through various fields of -linguistic change and asking in each what may have been the influence -of the child. The result of this investigation has been that there -are certain fields in which it is both impossible and really also -irrelevant to separate the share of the child and of the adult, -because both will be apt to introduce changes of that kind; such are -assimilations of neighbouring sounds and droppings of consonants in -groups. Also, with regard to those very gradual shiftings either of -sound or of meaning in which it is natural to assume many intermediate -stages through which the sound or signification must have passed before -arriving at the final result, children and adults must share the -responsibility for the change. Clippings of words occur in the speech -of both classes, but as a rule adults will keep the beginning of a -word, while very small children will perceive or remember only the end -of a word and use that for the whole. But finally there are some kinds -of changes which must wholly or chiefly be charged to the account -of children: such are those leaps in sound or signification in which -intermediate stages are out of the question, as well as confusions -of similar words and misdivisions of words, and the most violent -differentiations of words. - -I wish, however, here to insist on one point which has, I think, become -more and more clear in the course of our disquisition, namely, that we -ought not really to put the question like this: Are linguistic changes -due to children or to grown-up people? The important distinction is -not really one of age, which is evidently one of degree only, but -that between the first learners of the sound or word in question and -those who use it after having once learnt it. In the latter case we -have mainly to do with infinitesimal glidings, the results of which, -when summed up in the course of long periods of time, may be very -considerable indeed, but in which it will always be possible to detect -intermediate links connecting the extreme points. In contrast to these -changes occurring _after_ the correct (or original) form has been -acquired by the individual, we have changes occurring _simultaneously_ -with the first acquisition of the word or form in question, and thus -due to the fact of its transmission to a new generation, or, to speak -more generally, and, indeed, more correctly, to new individuals. The -exact age of the learner here is of little avail, as will be seen -if we take some examples of metanalysis. It is highly probable that -the first users of forms like _a pea_ or _a cherry_, instead of _a -pease_ and _a cherries_, were little children; but _a Chinee_ and _a -Portuguee_ are not necessarily, or not pre-eminently, children’s words: -on the other hand, it is to me indubitable that these forms do not -spring into existence in the mind of someone who has previously used -the forms _Chinese_ and _Portuguese_ in the singular number, but must -be due to the fact that the forms _the Chinese_ and _the Portuguese_ -(used as plurals) have been at once apprehended as made up of _Chinee_, -_Portuguee_ + the plural ending _-s_ by a person hearing them for the -first time; similarly in all the other cases. We shall see in a later -chapter that the adoption (on the part of children and adults alike) -of sounds and words from a foreign tongue presents certain interesting -points of resemblance with these instances of change: in both cases the -innovation begins when some individual is first made acquainted with -linguistic elements that are new to him. - - -X.--§ 6. Indirect Influence. - -We have hitherto considered what elements of the language may be -referred to a child’s first acquisition of language. But we have not -yet done with the part which children play in linguistic development. -There are two things which must be sharply distinguished from the -phenomena discussed in the preceding chapter--the first, that grown-up -people in many cases catch up the words and forms used by children -and thereby give them a power of survival which they would not have -otherwise; the second, that grown-up people alter their own language so -as to meet children half-way. - -As for the first point, we have already seen examples in which mothers -and nurses have found the baby’s forms so pretty that they have adopted -them themselves. Generally these forms are confined to the family -circle, but they may under favourable circumstances be propagated -further. A special case of the highest interest has been fully -discussed in the section about words of the _mamma_-class. - -As for the second point, grown-up people often adapt their speech to -the more or less imaginary needs of their children by pronouncing words -as they do, saying _dood_ and _tum_ for ‘good’ and ‘come,’ etc. This -notion clearly depends on a misunderstanding, and can only retard the -acquisition of the right pronunciation; the child understands _good_ -and _come_ at least as well, if not better, and the consequence may be -that when he is able himself to pronounce [g] and [k] he may consider -it immaterial, because one can just as well say [d] and [t] as [g] and -[k], or may be bewildered as to which words have the one sound and -which the other. It can only be a benefit to the child if all who come -in contact with it speak from the first as correctly, elegantly and -clearly as possible--not, of course, in long, stilted sentences and -with many learned book-words, but naturally and easily. When the child -makes a mistake, the most effectual way of correcting it is certainly -the indirect one of seeing that the child, soon after it has made -the mistake, hears the correct form. If he says ‘A waps stinged me’: -answer, ‘It stung you: did it hurt much when the wasp stung you?’ etc. -No special emphasis even is needed; next time he will probably use the -correct form. - -But many parents are not so wise; they will say _stinged_ themselves -when once they have heard the child say so. And nurses and others -have even developed a kind of artificial nursery language which they -imagine makes matters easier for the little ones, but which is in many -respects due to erroneous ideas of how children ought to talk rather -than to real observation of the way children do talk. Many forms are -handed over traditionally from one nurse to another, such as _totties_, -_tootems_ or _tootsies_ for ‘feet’ (from _trotters_?), _toothy-peg_ for -‘tooth,’ _tummy_ or _tumtum_ for ‘stomach,’ _tootleums_ for ‘babies,’ -_shooshoo_ for ‘a fly.’ I give a connected specimen of this nursery -language (from Egerton, _Keynotes_, 85): “Didsum was denn? Oo did! Was -ums de prettiest itta sweetums denn? Oo was. An’ did um put ’em in a -nasty shawl an’ joggle ’em in an ole puff-puff, um did, was a shame! -Hitchy cum, hitchy cum, hitchy cum hi, Chinaman no likey me.” This -reminds one of pidgin-English, and in a later chapter we shall see that -that and similar bastard languages are partly due to the same mistaken -notion that it is necessary to corrupt one’s language to be easily -understood by children and inferior races. - -Very frequently mothers and nurses talk to children in diminutives. -When many of these have become established in ordinary speech, losing -their force as diminutives and displacing the proper words, this is -another result of nursery language. The phenomenon is widely seen in -Romance languages, where _auricula_, Fr. _oreille_, It. _orecchio_, -displaces _auris_, and _avicellus_, Fr. _oiseau_, It. _uccello_, -displaces _avis_; we may remember that classical Latin had already -_oculus_, for ‘eye.’[40] It is the same in Modern Greek. An example of -the same tendency, though not of the same formal means of a diminutive -ending, is seen in the English _bird_ (originally = ‘young bird’) and -_rabbit_ (originally = ‘young rabbit’), which have displaced _fowl_ and -_coney_. - -A very remarkable case of the influence of nursery language on normal -speech is seen in many countries, viz. in the displacing of the old -word for ‘right’ (as opposed to left). The distinction of right and -left is not easy for small children: some children in the upper -classes at school only know which is which by looking at some wart, or -something of the sort, on one of their hands, and have to think every -time. Meanwhile mothers and nurses will frequently insist on the use of -the right (dextera) hand, and when they are not understood, will think -they make it easier for the child by saying ‘No, the _right_ hand,’ and -so it comes about that in many languages the word that originally means -‘correct’ is used with the meaning ‘dexter.’ So we have in English -_right_, in German _recht_, which displaces _zeso_, Fr. _droit_, which -displaces _destre_; in Spanish also _la derecha_ has begun to be used -instead of _la diestra_; similarly, in Swedish _den vackra handen_ -instead of _högra_, and in Jutlandish dialects _den kjön hånd_ instead -of _höjre_. - - -X.--§ 7. New Languages. - -In a subsequent chapter (XIV § 5) we shall consider the theory that -epochs in which the changes of some language proceed at a more rapid -pace than at others are due to the fact that in times of fierce, widely -extended wars many men leave home and remain abroad, either as settlers -or as corpses, while the women left behind have to do the field-work, -etc., and neglect their homes, the consequence being that the children -are left more to themselves, and therefore do not get their mistakes in -speech corrected as much as usual. - -A somewhat related idea is at the bottom of a theory advanced as early -as 1886 by the American ethnologist Horatio Hale (see “The Origin -of Languages,” in the American Association for the Advancement of -Science, XXXV, 1886, and “The Development of Language,” the Canadian -Institute, Toronto, 1888). As these papers seem to have been entirely -unnoticed by leading philologists, I shall give a short abstract of -them, leaving out what appears to me to be erroneous in the light of -recent linguistic thought and research, namely, his application of the -theory to explain the supposed three stages of linguistic development, -the monosyllabic, the agglutinative and the flexional. - -Hale was struck with the fact that in Oregon, in a region not much -larger than France, we find at least thirty different families of -languages living together. It is impossible to believe that thirty -separate communities of speechless precursors of man should have begun -to talk independently of one another in thirty distinct languages in -this district. Hale therefore concludes that the origin of linguistic -stocks is to be found in the language-making instinct of very young -children. When two children who are just beginning to speak are thrown -much together, they sometimes invent a complete language, sufficient -for all purposes of mutual intercourse, and yet totally unintelligible -to their parents. In an ordinary household, the conditions under which -such a language would be formed are most likely to occur in the case -of twins, and Hale now proceeds to mention those instances--five in -all--that he has come across of languages framed in this manner by -young children. He concludes: “It becomes evident that, to ensure the -creation of a speech which shall be a parent of a new language stock, -all that is needed is that two or more young children should be placed -by themselves in a condition where they will be entirely, or in a large -degree, free from the presence and influence of their elders. They -must, of course, continue in this condition long enough to grow up, to -form a household, and to have descendants to whom they can communicate -their new speech.” - -These conditions he finds among the hunting tribes of America, in which -it is common for single families to wander off from the main band. “In -modern times, when the whole country is occupied, their flight would -merely carry them into the territory of another tribe, among whom, if -well received, they would quickly be absorbed. But in the primitive -period, when a vast uninhabited region stretched before them, it would -be easy for them to find some sheltered nook or fruitful valley.... -If under such circumstances disease or the casualties of a hunter’s -life should carry off the parents, the survival of the children would, -it is evident, depend mainly upon the nature of the climate and the -ease with which food could be procured at all seasons of the year. In -ancient Europe, after the present climatal conditions were established, -it is doubtful if a family of children under ten years of age could -have lived through a single winter. We are not, therefore, surprised -to find that no more than four or five language stocks are represented -in Europe.... Of Northern America, east of the Rocky Mountains and -north of the tropics, the same may be said.... But there is one region -where Nature seems to offer herself as the willing nurse and bountiful -stepmother of the feeble and unprotected ... California. Its wonderful -climate (follows a long description).... Need we wonder that, in such -a mild and fruitful region, a great number of separate tribes were -found, speaking languages which a careful investigation has classed in -nineteen distinct linguistic stocks?” In Oregon, and in the interior of -Brazil, Hale finds similar climatic conditions with the same result, a -great number of totally dissimilar languages, while in Australia, whose -climate is as mild as that of any of these regions, we find hundreds, -perhaps thousands, of petty tribes, as completely isolated as those of -South America, but all speaking languages of the same stock--because -“the other conditions are such as would make it impossible for an -isolated group of young children to survive. The whole of Australia is -subject to severe droughts, and is so scantily provided with edible -products that the aborigines are often reduced to the greatest straits.” - -This, then, is Hale’s theory. Let us now look a little closer into the -proofs adduced. They are, as it will be seen, of a twofold order. He -invokes the language-creating tendencies of young children on the one -hand, and on the other the geographical distribution of linguistic -stocks or genera. - -As to the first, it is true that so competent a psychologist as Wundt -denies the possibility in very strong terms.[41] But facts certainly do -not justify this foregone conclusion. I must first refer the reader to -Hale’s own report of the five instances known to him. Unfortunately, -the linguistic material collected by him is so scanty that we can form -only a very imperfect idea of the languages which he says children -have developed and of the relation between them and the language of -the parents. But otherwise his report is very instructive, and I shall -call special attention to the fact that in most cases the children seem -to have been ‘spoilt’ by their parents; this is also the case with -regard to one of the families, though it does not appear from Hale’s -own extracts from the book in which he found his facts (G. Watson, -_Universe of Language_, N.Y., 1878). - -The only word recorded in this case is _nī-si-boo-a_ for ‘carriage’; -how that came into existence, I dare not conjecture; but when it is -said that the syllables of it were sometimes so repeated that they -made a much longer word, this agrees very well with what I have myself -observed with regard to ordinary children’s playful word-coinages. In -the next case, described by E. R. Hun, M.D., of Albany, more words are -given. Some of these bear a strong resemblance to French, although -neither the parents nor servants spoke that language; and Hale thinks -that some person may have “amused herself, innocently enough, by -teaching the child a few words of that tongue.” This, however, does not -seem necessary to explain the words recorded. _Feu_, pronounced, we -are told, like the French word, signified ‘fire, light, cigar, sun’: -it may be either E. _fire_ or else an imitation of the sound _fff_ -without a vowel, or [fə·] used in blowing out a candle or a match or -in smoking, so as to amuse the child, exactly as in the case of one -of my little Danish friends, who used _fff_ as the name for ‘smoke, -steam,’ and later for ‘funnel, chimney,’ and finally anything standing -upright against the sky, for instance, a flagstaff. _Petee-petee_, -the name which the Albany girl gave to her brother, and which Dr. -Hun derived from F. _petit_, may be just as well from E. _pet_ or -_petty_; and to explain her word for ‘I,’ _ma_, we need not go to -F. _moi_, as E. _me_ or _my_ may obviously be thus distorted by any -child. Her word for ‘not’ is said to have been _ne-pas_, though the -exact pronunciation is not given. This cannot have been taken from the -French, at any rate not from real French, as _ne_ and _pas_ are here -separated, and _ne_ is more often than not pronounced without the vowel -or omitted altogether; the girl’s word, if pronounced something like -['nepa·] may be nothing else than an imperfect childish pronunciation -of _never_, cf. the negroes’ form _nebber_. _Too_, ‘all, everything,’ -of course resembles Fr. _tout_, but how should anyone have been able -to teach this girl, who did not speak any intelligible language, a -French word of this abstract character? Some of the other words admit -of a natural explanation from English: _go-go_, ‘delicacy, as sugar, -candy or dessert,’ is probably _goody-goody_, or a reduplicated form -of _good_; _deer_, ‘money,’ may be from _dear_, ‘expensive’; _odo_, -‘to send for, to go out, to take away,’ is evidently _out_, as in _ma -odo_, ‘I want to go out’; _gaän_, ‘God,’ must be the English word, in -spite of the difference in pronunciation, for the child would never -think of inventing this idea on its own accord; _pa-ma_, ‘to go to -sleep, pillow, bed,’ is from _by-bye_ or an independent word of the -_mamma_-class; _mea_, ‘cat, fur,’ of course is imitative of the sound -of the cat. For the rest of the words I have no conjectures to offer. -Some of the derived meanings are curious, though perhaps not more -startling than many found in the speech of ordinary children; _papa_ -and _mamma_ separately had their usual signification, but _papa-mamma_ -meant ‘church, prayer-book, cross, priest’: the parents were punctual -in church observances; _gar odo_, ‘horse out, to send for the horse,’ -came to mean ‘pencil and paper,’ as the father used, when the carriage -was wanted, to write an order and send it to the stable. In the -remaining three cases of ‘invented’ languages no specimens are given, -except _shindikik_, ‘cat.’ In all cases the children seem to have -talked together fluently when by themselves in their own gibberish. - -But there exists on record a case better elucidated than Hale’s five -cases, namely that of the Icelandic girl Sæunn. (See Jonasson and -Eschricht in _Dansk Maanedsskrift_, Copenhagen, 1858.) She was born -in the beginning of the last century on a farm in Húnavatns-syssel in -the northern part of Iceland, and began early to converse with her -twin brother in a language that was entirely unintelligible to their -surroundings. Her parents were disquieted, and therefore resolved to -send away the brother, who died soon afterwards. They now tried to -teach the girl Icelandic, but soon (too soon, evidently!) came to the -conclusion that she could not learn it, and then they were foolish -enough to learn _her_ language, as did also her brothers and sisters -and even some of their friends. In order that she might be confirmed, -her elder brother translated the catechism and acted as interpreter -between the parson and the girl. She is described as intelligent--she -even composed poetry in her own language--but shy and distrustful. -Jonasson gives a few specimens of her language, some of which Eschricht -succeeds in interpreting as based on Icelandic words, though strangely -disfigured. The language to Jonasson, who had heard it, seemed totally -dissimilar to Icelandic in sounds and construction; it had no flexions, -and lacked pronouns. The vocabulary was so limited that she very -often had to supplement a phrase by means of nods or gestures; and it -was difficult to carry on a conversation with her in the dark. The -ingenuity of some of the compounds and metaphors is greatly admired by -Jonasson, though to the more sober mind of Eschricht they appear rather -childish or primitive, as when a ‘wether’ is called _mepok-ill_ from -_me_ (imitation of the sound) + _pok_, ‘a little bag’ (Icel. _poki_) -+ _ill_, ‘to cut.’ The only complete sentence recorded is ‘Dirfa offo -nonona uhuh,’ which means: ‘Sigurdur gets up extremely late.’ In his -analysis of the whole case Eschricht succeeds in stripping it of the -mystical glamour in which it evidently appeared to Jonasson as well as -to the girl’s relatives; he is undoubtedly right in maintaining that if -the parents had persisted in only talking Icelandic to her, she would -soon have forgotten her own language; he compares her words with some -strange disfigurements of Danish which he had observed among children -in his own family and acquaintanceship. - -I read this report a good many years ago, and afterwards I tried on -two occasions to obtain precise information about similar cases I had -seen mentioned, one in Halland (Sweden) and the other in Finland, but -without success. But in 1903, when I was lecturing on the language -of children in the University of Copenhagen, I had the good fortune -to hear of a case not far from Copenhagen of two children speaking a -language of their own. I investigated the case as well as I could, by -seeing and hearing them several times and thus checking the words and -sentences which their teacher, who was constantly with them, kindly -took down in accordance with my directions. I am thus enabled to give -a fairly full account of their language, though unfortunately my -investigation was interrupted by a long voyage in 1904. - -The boys were twins, about five and a half years old when I saw them, -and so alike that even the people who were about them every day had -difficulty in distinguishing them from each other. Their mother (a -single woman) neglected them shamefully when they were quite small, -and they were left very much to shift for themselves. For a long -time, while their mother was ill in a hospital, they lived in an -out-of-the-way place with an old woman, who is said to have been very -deaf, and who at any rate troubled herself very little about them. -When they were four years old, the parish authorities discovered how -sadly neglected they were and that they spoke quite unintelligibly, -and therefore sent them to a ‘children’s home’ in Seeland, where they -were properly taken care of. At first they were extremely shy and -reticent, and it was a long time before they felt at home with the -other children. When I first saw them, they had in so far learnt the -ordinary language that they were able to understand many everyday -sentences spoken to them, and could do what they were told (e.g. ‘Take -the footstool and put it in my room near the stove’), but they could -not speak Danish and said very little in the presence of anybody -else. When they were by themselves they conversed pretty freely and -in a completely unintelligible gibberish, as I had the opportunity to -convince myself when standing behind a door one day when they thought -they were not observed. Afterwards I got to be in a way good friends -with them--they called me _py-ma_, _py_ being their word for ‘smoke, -smoking, pipe, cigar,’ so that I got my name from the chocolate cigars -which I used to ingratiate myself with them--and then I got them to -repeat words and phrases which their teacher had written out for me, -and thus was enabled to write down everything phonetically. - -An analysis of the sounds occurring in their words showed me that their -vocal organs were perfectly normal. Most of the words were evidently -Danish words, however much distorted and shortened; a voiceless _l_, -which does not occur in Danish, and which I write here _lh_, was a -very frequent sound. This, combined with an inclination to make many -words end in _-p_, was enough to disguise words very effectually, -as when _sort_ (black) was made _lhop_. I shall give the children’s -pronunciations of the names of some of their new playfellows, adding in -brackets the Danish substratum: _lhep_ (Svend), _lhip_ (Vilhelm), _lip_ -(Elisabeth), _lop_ (Charlotte), _bap_ (Mandse); similarly the doctor -was called _dop_. In many cases there was phonetic assimilation at a -distance, as when milk (mælk) was called _bep_, flower (blomst) _bop_, -light (lys) _lhylh_, sugar (sukker) _lholh_, cold (kulde) _lhulh_, -sometimes also _ulh_, bed (seng) _sæjs_, fish (fisk) _se-is_. - -I subjoin a few complete sentences: _nina enaj una enaj hæna mad enaj_, -‘we shall not fetch food for the young rabbits’: _nina_ rabbit (kanin), -_enaj_ negation (nej, no), repeated several times in each negative -sentence, as in Old English and in Bantu languages, _una_ young (unge). -_Bap ep dop_, ‘Mandse has broken the hobby-horse,’ literally ‘Mandse -horse piece.’ _Hos ia bov lhalh_, ‘brother’s trousers are wet, Maria,’ -literally ‘trousers Maria brother water.’ The words are put together -without any flexions, and the word order is totally different from that -of Danish. - -Only in one case was I unable to identify words that I understood -either as ‘little language’ forms of Danish words or else as -sound-imitations; but then it must be remembered that they spoke a -good deal that neither I nor any of the people about them could make -anything of. And then, unfortunately, when I began to study it, their -language was already to a great extent ‘humanized’ in comparison to -what it was when they first came to the children’s home. In fact, -I noticed a constant progress during the short time I observed the -boys, and in some of the last sentences I have noted, I even find the -genitive case employed. - -The idiom of these twins cannot, of course, be called an independent, -still less a complete or fully developed language; but if they were -able to produce something so different from the language spoken around -them at the beginning of the twentieth century and in a civilized -country, there can to my mind be no doubt that Hale is right in his -contention that children left to themselves even more than these were, -in an uninhabited region where they were still not liable to die from -hunger or cold, would be able to develop a language for their mutual -understanding that might become so different from that of their parents -as really to constitute a new stock of language. So that we can now -pass to the other--geographical--side of what Hale advances in favour -of his theory. - -So far as I can see, the facts here tally very well with the theory. -Take, on the one hand, the Eskimo languages, spoken with astonishingly -little variation from the east coast of Greenland to Alaska, an immense -stretch of territory in which small children if left to themselves -would be sure to die very soon indeed. Or take the Finnish-Ugrian -languages in the other hemisphere, exhibiting a similar close -relationship, though spread over wide areas. And then, on the other -hand, the American languages already adduced by Hale. I do not pretend -to any deeper knowledge of these languages; but from the most recent -works of very able specialists I gather an impression of the utmost -variety in phonetics, in grammatical structure and in vocabulary; -see especially Roland B. Dixon and Alfred L. Kroeber, “The Native -Languages of California,” in the _American Anthropologist_, 1903. Even -where recent research seems to establish some kind of kinship between -families hitherto considered as distinguished stocks (as in Dixon’s -interesting paper, “Linguistic Relationships within the Shasta-Achomawi -Stock,” XV Congrès des Américanistes, 1906) the similarities are still -so incomplete, so capricious and generally so remote that they seem to -support Hale’s explanation rather than a gradual splitting of the usual -kind. - -As for Brazil, I shall quote some interesting remarks from C. F. P. -v. Martius, _Beiträge zur Ethnographie u. Sprachenkunde Amerika’s_, -1867, i. p. 46: “In Brazil we see a scant and unevenly distributed -native population, uniform in bodily structure, temperament, customs -and manner of living generally, but presenting a really astonishing -diversity in language. A language is often confined to a few mutually -related individuals; it is in truth a family heirloom and isolates -its speakers from all other people so as to render any attempt at -understanding impossible. On the vessel in which we travelled up the -rivers in the interior of Brazil, we often, among twenty Indian rowers, -could count only three or four that were at all able to speak together -... they sat there side by side dumb and stupid.” - -Hale’s theory is worthy, then, of consideration, and now, at the close -of our voyage round the world of children’s language, we have gained a -post of vantage from which we can overlook the whole globe and see that -the peculiar word-forms which children use in their ‘little language’ -period can actually throw light on the distribution of languages and -groups of languages over the great continents. Yes, - - Scorn not the little ones! You oft will find - They reach the goal, when great ones lag behind. - -FOOTNOTES: - -[38] See my MEG ii. 5. 6, and my paper on “Subtraktionsdannelser,” in -_Festskrift til Vilh. Thomsen_, 1894, p. 1 ff. - -[39] Semantic changes through ambiguous syntactic combinations -have recently been studied especially by Carl Collin; see his -_Semasiologiska studier_, 1906, and _Le Développement de Sens du -Suffixe -ATA_, Lund, 1918, ch. iii and iv. Collin there treats -especially of the transition from abstract to concrete nouns; he does -not, as I have done above, speak of the rôle of the younger generation -in such changes. - -[40] I know perfectly well that in these and in other similar words -there were reasons for the original word disappearing as unfit -(shortness, possibility of mistakes through similarity with other -words, etc.). What interests me here is the fact that the substitute is -a word of the nursery. - -[41] “Einige namentlich in der ältern litteratur vorkommende angaben -über kinder, die sich zusammen aufwachsend eine eigene sprache gebildet -haben sollen, sind wohl ein für allemal in das gebiet der fabel zu -verweisen” (S 1. 286). - - - - -_BOOK III_ - -THE INDIVIDUAL AND THE WORLD - - - - -CHAPTER XI - -THE FOREIGNER - - § 1. The Substratum Theory. § 2. French _u_ and Spanish _h_. § 3. - Gothonic and Keltic. § 4. Etruscan and Indian Consonants. § 5. - Gothonic Sound-shift. § 6. Natural and Specific Changes. § 7. Power - of Substratum. § 8. Types of Race-mixture. § 9. Summary. § 10. - General Theory of Loan-words. § 11. Classes of Loan-words. § 12. - Influence on Grammar. § 13. Translation-loans. - - -XI.--§ 1. The Substratum Theory. - -It seems evident that if we wish to find out the causes of linguistic -change, a fundamental division must be into-- - -(1) Changes that are due to the transference of the language to new -individuals, and - -(2) Changes that are independent of such transference. - -It may not be easy in practice to distinguish the two classes, as the -very essence of the linguistic life of each individual is a continual -give-and-take between him and those around him; still, the division is -in the main clear, and will consequently be followed in the present -work. - -The first class falls again naturally into two heads, according as the -new individual does not, or does already, possess a language. With the -former, i.e. with the native child learning his ‘mother-tongue,’ we -have dealt at length in Book II, and we now proceed to an examination -of the influence exercised on a language through its transference to -individuals who are already in possession of another language--let us, -for the sake of shortness, call them foreigners. - -While some earlier scholars denied categorically the existence of mixed -languages, recent investigators have attached a very great importance -to mixtures of languages, and have studied actually occurring mixtures -of various degrees and characters with the greatest accuracy: I mention -here only one name, that of Hugo Schuchardt, who combines profundity -and width of knowledge with a truly philosophical spirit, though the -form of his numerous scattered writings makes it difficult to gather a -just idea of his views on many questions. - -Many scholars have recently attached great importance to the subtler -and more hidden influence exerted by one language on another in those -cases in which a population abandons its original language and adopts -that of another race, generally in consequence of military conquest. In -these cases the theory is that people keep many of their speech-habits, -especially with regard to articulation and accent, even while using the -vocabulary, etc., of the new language, which thus to a large extent is -tinged by the old language. There is thus created what is now generally -termed a _substratum_ underlying the new language. As the original -substratum modifying a language which gradually spreads over a large -area varies according to the character of the tribes subjugated in -different districts, this would account for many of those splittings-up -of languages which we witness everywhere. - -Hirt goes so far as to think it possible by the help of existing -dialect boundaries to determine the extensions of aboriginal languages -(Idg 19). - -There is certainly something very plausible in this manner of viewing -linguistic changes, for we all know from practical everyday experience -that the average foreigner is apt to betray his nationality as soon -as he opens his mouth: the Italian’s or the German’s English is just -as different from the ‘real thing’ as, inversely, the Englishman’s -Italian or German is different from the Italian or German of a -native: the place of articulation, especially that of the tongue-tip -consonants, the aspiration or want of aspiration of _p_, _t_, _k_, -the voicing or non-voicing of _b_, _d_, _g_, the diphthongization -or monophthongization of long vowels, the syllabification, various -peculiarities in quantity and in tone-movements--all such things are -apt to colour the whole acoustic impression of a foreigner’s speech -in an acquired language, and it is, of course, a natural supposition -that the aboriginal inhabitants of Europe and Asia were just as liable -to transfer their speech habits to new languages as their descendants -are nowadays. There is thus a priori a strong probability that -linguistic substrata have exercised some influence on the development -of conquering languages. But when we proceed to apply this natural -inference to concrete examples of linguistic history, we shall see -that the theory does not perhaps suffice to explain everything that -its advocates would have it explain, and that there are certain -difficulties which have not always been faced or appraised according -to their real value. A consideration of these concrete examples will -naturally lead up to a discussion of the general principles involved in -the substratum theory. - - -XI.--§ 2. French _u_ and Spanish _h_. - -First I shall mention Ascoli’s famous theory that French [y·] for -Latin _u_, as in _dur_, etc., is due to Gallic influence, cf. Welsh -_i_ in _din_ from _dun_, which presupposes a transition from _u_ -to [y]. Ascoli found a proof in the fact that Dutch also has the -pronunciation [y·], e.g. in _duur_, on the old Keltic soil of the -Belgæ, to which Schuchardt (SlD 126) added his observation of [y] in -dialectal South German (Breisgau), in a district in which there had -formerly been a strong Keltic element. This looks very convincing at -first blush. On closer inspection, doubts arise on many points. The -French transition cannot with certainty be dated very early, for then -_c_ in _cure_ would have been palatalized and changed as _c_ before -_i_ (Lenz, KZ 39. 46); also the treatment of the vowel in French words -taken over into English, where it is not identified with the native -[y], but becomes [iu], is best explained on the assumption that about -1200 A.D. the sound had not advanced farther on its march towards the -front position than, say, the Swedish ‘mixed-round’ sound in _hus_. -The district in which [y] is found for _u_ is not coextensive with the -Keltic possessions; there were very few Kelts in what is now Holland, -and inversely South German [y] for _u_ does not cover the whole Keltic -domain; [y] is found outside the French territory proper, namely, in -Franco-Provençal (where the substratum was Ligurian) and in Provençal -(where there were very few Galli; cf. Wechssler, L 113). Thus the -province of [y] is here too small and there too large to make the -argument conclusive. Even more fatal is the objection that the Gallic -transition from _u_ to _y_ is very uncertain (Pedersen, GKS 1. § 353). -So much is certain, that the fronting of _u_ was not a _common_ Keltic -transition, for it is not found in the Gaelic (Goidelic) branch.[42] -On the other hand, the transition from [u] to [y] occurs elsewhere, -independent of Keltic influence, as in Old Greek (cf. also the Swedish -sound in _hus_): why cannot it, then, be independent in French? - -Another case adduced by Ascoli is initial _h_ instead of Latin _f_ in -the country anciently occupied by the Iberians. Now, Basque has no -_f_ sound at all in any connexion; if the same aversion to _f_ had -been the cause of the Spanish substitution of _h_ for _f_, we should -expect the substitution to have been made from the moment when Latin -was first spoken in Hispania, and we should expect it to be found in -all positions and connexions. But what do we find instead? First, that -Old Spanish had _f_ in many cases where modern Spanish has _h_ (i.e. -really no sound at all), and this cannot be altogether ascribed to -‘Latinizing scribes.’ On the contrary, the transition _f_ > _h_ seems -to have taken place many centuries after the Roman invasion, since -the Spanish-speaking Jews of Salonika, who emigrated from Spain about -1500, have to this day preserved the _f_ sound among other archaic -traits (see F. Hanssen, _Span. Gramm._ 45; Wiener, _Modern Philology_, -June 1903, p. 205). And secondly, that _f_ has been kept in certain -connexions; thus, before [w], as in _fuí_, _fuiste_, _fué_, etc., -before _r_ and _l_, as in _fruto_, _flor_, etc. This certainly is -inexplicable if the cause of _f_ > _h_ had been the want of power on -the part of the aborigines to produce the _f_ sound at all, while it is -simple enough if we assume a later transition, taking place possibly -at first between two vowels, with a subsequent generalization of the -_f_-less forms. Diez is here, as not infrequently, more sensible than -some of his successors (see _Gramm. d. roman. spr._, 4th ed., 1. 283 -f., 373 f.). - - -XI.--§ 3. Gothonic and Keltic. - -Feist (KI 480 ff.: cf. PBB 36. 307 ff., 37. 112 ff.) applies the -substratum theory to the Gothonic (Germanic) languages. The Gothons -are autochthonous in northern Europe, and very little mixed with other -races; they must have immigrated just after the close of the glacial -period. But the arrival of Aryan (Indogermanic) tribes cannot be placed -earlier than about 2000 B.C.; they made the original inhabitants give -up their own language. The nation that thus Aryanized the Gothons -cannot have been other than the Kelts; their supremacy over the Gothons -is proved by several loan-words for cultural ideas or state offices, -such as Gothic _reiks_ ‘king,’ _andbahts_ ‘servant.’ The Aryan language -which the Kelts taught the Gothons was subjected in the process to -considerable changes, the old North Europeans pronouncing the new -language in accordance with their previous speech habits; instead of -taking over the free Aryan accent, they invariably stressed the initial -syllable, and they made sad havoc of the Aryan flexion. - -The theory does not bear close inspection. The number of Keltic -loan-words is not great enough for us to infer such an overpowering -ascendancy on the part of the Kelts as would force the subjected -population to make a complete surrender of their own tongue. Neither -in number nor in intrinsic significance can these loans be compared -with the French loans in English: and yet the Normans did not succeed -in substituting their own language for English. Besides, if the -theory were true, we should not merely see a certain number of Keltic -loan-words, but the whole speech, the complete vocabulary as well as -the entire grammar, would be Keltic; yet as a matter of fact there is -a wide gulf between Keltic and Gothonic, and many details, lexical -and grammatical, in the latter group resemble other Aryan languages -rather than Keltic. The stressing of the first syllable is said to be -due to the aboriginal language. If that were so, it would mean that -this population, in adopting the new speech, had at once transferred -its own habit of stressing the first syllable to all the new words, -very much as Icelanders are apt to do nowadays. But this is not in -accordance with well established facts in the Gothonic languages: we -know that when the consonant shift took place, it found the stress on -the same syllables as in Sanskrit, and that it was this stress on many -middle or final syllables that afterwards changed many of the shifted -consonants from voiceless to voiced (Verner’s law).[43] This fact in -itself suffices to prove that the consonant shift and the stress shift -cannot have taken place simultaneously, and thus cannot be due to one -and the same cause, as supposed by Feist. Nor can the havoc wrought in -the old flexions be due to the inability of a new people to grasp the -minute _nuances_ and intricate system of another language than its own; -for in that case too we should have something like the formless ‘Pidgin -English’ from the very beginning, whereas the oldest Gothonic languages -still preserve a great many old flexions and subtle syntactical rules -which have since disappeared. As a matter of fact, many of the flexions -of primitive Aryan were much better preserved in Gothonic languages -than in Keltic. - - -XI.--§ 4. Etruscan and Indian Consonants. - -In another place in the same work (KI 373) Feist speaks of the Etruscan -language, and says that this had only one kind of stop consonants, -represented by the letters _k_ (_c_), _t_, _p_, besides the aspirated -stops _kh_, _th_, _ph_, which in some instances correspond to Latin -and Greek tenues. This, he says, reminds one very strongly of the -sound system of High German (oberdeutschen) dialects, and more -particularly of those spoken in the Alps. Feist here (and in PBB 36. -340 ff.) maintains that these sounds go back to a Pre-Gothonic Alpine -population, which he identifies with the ancient Rhætians; and he sees -in this a strong support of a linguistic connexion between the Rhætians -and Etruscans. He finds further striking analogies between the Gothonic -and the Armenian sound systems; the predilection for voiceless stops -and aspirated sounds in Etruscan, in the domain of the ancient Rhætians -and in Asia Minor is accordingly ascribed to the speech habits of one -and the same aboriginal race. - -Here, too, there are many points to which I must take exception. It is -not quite certain that the usual interpretation of Etruscan letters is -correct; in fact, much may be said in favour of the hypothesis that -the letters rendered _p_, _t_, _k_ stand really for the sounds of -_b_, _d_, _g_, and that those transcribed _ph_, _th_, _kh_ (or Greek -φ, θ, χ) represent ordinary _p_, _t_, _k_. However this may be, Feist -seems to be speaking here almost in the same breath of the first (or -common Gothonic) shift and of the second (or specially High German) -shift, although they are separated from each other by several centuries -and neither cover the same geographical ground nor lead to the same -phonetic result. Neither Armenian nor primitive Gothonic can be said to -be averse to voiced stops, for in both we find voiced _b_, _d_, _g_ for -the old ‘mediæ aspiratæ.’ And in both languages the old voiceless stops -became at first probably not aspirates, but simply voiceless spirants, -as in English _f_ather, _th_ing, and Scotch lo_ch_. Further, it should -be noted that we do not find the tendency to unvoice stops and to -pronounce affricates either in Rhæto-Romanic (Ladin) or in Tuscan -Italian; both languages have unaspirated _p_, _t_, _k_ and voiced _b_, -_d_, _g_, and the Tuscan pronunciation of _c_ between two vowels as -[x], thus in _la casa_ [la xa·sa], but not in _a casa_ = [akka·sa], -could not be termed ‘aspiration’ except by a non-phonetician; this -pronunciation can hardly have anything to do with the old Etruscan -language. - -According to a theory which is very widely accepted, the Dravidian -languages exerted a different influence on the Aryan languages when -the Aryans first set foot on Indian soil, in making them adopt the -‘cacuminal’ (or ‘inverted’) sounds _ḍ_, _ṭ_, _ṇ_ with _ḍh_ and _ṭh_, -which were not found in primitive Aryan. But even this theory does not -seem to be quite proof against objections. It is easy to admit that -natives accustomed to one place of articulation of their _d_, _t_, _n_ -will unconsciously produce the _d_, _t_, _n_ of a new language they -are learning in the same place; but then they will do it everywhere. -Here, however, both Dravidian and Sanskrit possess pure dental _d_, -_t_, _n_, pronounced with the tip of the tongue touching the upper -teeth, besides cacuminal _ḍ_, _ṭ_, _ṇ_, in which it touches the gum or -front part of the hard palate. In Sanskrit we find that the cacuminal -articulation occurs only under very definite conditions, chiefly -under the influence of _r_. Now, a trilled tongue-point _r_ in most -languages, for purely physiological reasons which are easily accounted -for, tends to be pronounced further back than ordinary dentals; and it -is therefore quite natural that it should spontaneously exercise an -influence on neighbouring dentals by drawing them back to its own point -of articulation. This may have happened in India quite independently -of the occurrence of the same sounds in other vernaculars, just as -we find the same influence very pronouncedly in Swedish and in East -Norwegian, where _d_, _t_, _n_, _s_ are cacuminal (supradental) in -such words as _bord_, _kort_, _barn_, _först_, etc. According to -Grandgent (_Neuere Sprachen_, 2. 447), _d_ in his own American English -is pronounced further back than elsewhere before and after _r_, as in -_dry_, _hard_; but in none of these cases need we conjure up an extinct -native population to account for a perfectly natural development. - - -XI.--§ 5. Gothonic Sound-shift. - -Since the time of Grimm the Gothonic consonant changes have harassed -the minds of linguists; they became _the_ sound-shift and were -considered as something _sui generis_, something out of the common, -which required a different explanation from all other sound-shifts. -Several explanations have been offered, to some of which we shall have -to revert later; none, however, has been so popular as that which -attributes the shift to an ethnic substratum. This explanation is -accepted by Hirt, Feist, Meillet and others, though their agreement -ceases when the question is asked: What nationality and what language -can have been the cause of the change? While some cautiously content -themselves with saying that there must have been an original -population, others guess at Kelts, Finns, Rhætians or Etrurians--all -fascinating names to minds of a speculative turn. - -The latest treatment of the question that I have seen is by K. Wessely -(in _Anthropos_, XII-XIII 540 ff., 1917). He assumes the following -different substrata, beginning with the most recent: a Rhæto-Romanic -for the Upper-German shift, a Keltic for the common High-German shift, -and a Finnic for the first Germanic shift with the Vernerian law. -This certainly has the merit of neatly separating sound-shifts that -are chronologically apart, except with regard to the last-mentioned -shift, for here the Finns are made responsible for two changes that -were probably separated by centuries and had really no traits in -common. It is curious to see the transition from _p_ to _f_ and from -_t_ to _þ_--both important elements of the first shift--here ascribed -to Finnic, for as a matter of fact the two sounds _f_ and _þ_ are -not found in present-day Finnish, and were not found in primitive -Ugro-Finnic.[44] - -When Wessely thinks that the change discovered by Verner is also due -to Finnic influence, his reasons are two: an alleged parallelism with -the Finnic consonant change which he terms ‘Setälä’s law,’ and then the -assumption that such a shift, conditioned by the place of the accent, -is foreign to the Aryan race (p. 543). When, however, we find a closely -analogous case only four hundred years ago in English, where a number -of consonants were voiced according to the place of the stress,[45] -are we also to say that it is foreign to the Anglo-Saxon race and -therefore presupposes some non-Aryan substratum? As a matter of fact, -the parallelism between the English and the old Gothonic shift is much -closer than that between the latter and the Finnic consonant-gradation: -in English and in old Gothonic the stress place is decisive, while in -the Finnic shift it is very doubtful whether stress goes for anything; -in both English and old Gothonic the same consonants are affected -(spirants, in English also the combinations [tʃ, ks], but otherwise no -stops), while in Finnic it is the stops that are primarily affected. -In old Gothonic, as in English, the change is simply voicing, and we -have nothing corresponding to the reduction of double consonants and -of consonant groups in Finnic _pappi_ / _papin_, _otta_ / _otat_, -_kukka_ / _kukan_, _parempi_ / _paremman_, _jalka_ / _jalan_, etc. -On the whole, Wessely’s paper shows how much easier it is to advance -hypotheses than to find truths. - - -XI.--§ 6. Natural and Specific Changes. - -Meillet (MSL 19. 164 and 172; cf. _Bulletin_ 19. 50 and _Germ._ 18) -thinks that we must distinguish between such phonetic changes as are -natural, i.e. due to universal tendencies, and such as are peculiar -to certain languages. In the former class he includes the opening and -the voicing of intervocalic consonants; there is also a natural and -universal tendency to shorten long words and to slur the pronunciation -towards the end of a word. In the latter class (changes which are -peculiar to and characteristic of a particular language) he reckons the -consonant shifts in Gothonic and Armenian, the weakening of consonants -in Greek and in Iranian, the tendency to unround back vowels in English -and Slav. Such changes can only be accounted for on the supposition of -a change of language: they must be due to people whose own language had -habits foreign to Aryan. Unfortunately, Meillet cannot tell us how to -measure the difference between natural and peculiar shifts; he admits -that they cannot always be clearly separated; and when he says that -there are some extreme cases ‘relativement nets,’ such as those named -above, I must confess that I do not see why the change from the sharp -tenuis, as in Fr. _p_, _t_, _k_, to a slightly aspirated sound, as in -English (_Bulletin_ 19. 50),[46] or the relaxing of the closure which -finally led to the sounds of [f, þ, x], should be less ‘natural’ than -a hundred other changes and should require the calling in of a _deus -ex machina_ in the shape of an aboriginal population. The unrounding -of E. _u_ in _hut_, etc., to which he alludes, began about 1600--what -ethnic substratum does that postulate, and is any such required, more -than for, say, the diphthongizing of long _a_ and _o_? - -Meillet (MSL 19. 172) also says that there are certain speech sounds -which are, as it were, natural and are found in nearly all languages, -thus _p_, _t_, _k_, _n_, _m_, and among the vowels _a_, _i_, _u_, -while other sounds are found only in some languages, such as the two -English _th_ sounds or, among the vowels, Fr. _u_ and Russian _y_. -But when he infers that sounds of the former class are stable and -remain unchanged for many centuries, whereas those of the latter -are apt to change and disappear, the conclusion is not borne out by -actual facts. The consonants _p_, _t_, _k_, _n_, _m_ are said to have -remained unchanged in many Aryan languages from the oldest times till -the present day--that is, only initially before vowels, which is a -very important reservation and really amounts to an admission that in -the vast majority of cases these sounds are just as unstable as most -other things on this planet, especially if we remember that nothing -could well be more unstable than _k_ before front vowels, as seen in -It. [tʃ] and Sp. [þ] in _cielo_, Fr. [s] in _ciel_, and [ʃ] in _chien_, -Eng. and Swedish [tʃ] in _chin_, _kind_, Norwegian [c] in _kind_, -Russian [tʃ] in _četyre_ ‘four’ and [s] in _sto_ ‘hundred,’ etc. As -an example of a typically unstable sound Meillet gives bilabial _f_, -and it is true that this sound is so rare that it is difficult to find -it represented in any language; the reason is simply that the upper -teeth normally protrude above the lower jaw, and that consequently the -lower lip articulates easily against the upper teeth, with the natural -result that where we should theoretically expect the bilabial _f_ -the labiodental _f_ takes its place. And _s_, which is found almost -universally, and should therefore on Meillet’s theory be very stable, -is often seen to change into _h_ or [x] or to disappear. On the whole, -then, we see that it is not the ‘naturalness’ or universality of a -consonant so much as its position in the syllable and word that decides -the question ‘change or no change.’ The relation between stability -and naturalness is seen, perhaps, most clearly in such an instance -as long [a·]: this sound is so natural that English, from the oldest -Aryan to present-day speech, has never been without it; yet at no time -has it been stable, but as soon as one class of words with long [a·] -is changed, a new class steps into its shoes: (1) Aryan _māter_, now -_mother_; (2) lengthening of a short _a_ before _n_: _gās_, _brāhta_, -now _goose_, _brought_; (3) levelling of _ai_: _stān_, now _stone_; (4) -lengthening of short _a_: _cāld_, now _cold_; (5) later lengthening of -_a_ in open syllable: _nāme_, now [neim]; (6) mod. _carve_, _calm_, -_path_ and others from various sources; and (7) vulgar speech is now -developing new levellings of diphthongs in [ma·l, pa·(ə)] for _mile_, -_power_. - - -XI.--§ 7. Power of Substratum. - -V. Bröndal has made the attempt to infuse new blood into the substratum -theory through his book, _Substrater og Laan i Romansk og Germansk_ -(Copenhagen, 1917). The effect of a substratum, according to him, is -the establishment of a ‘constant idiom,’ working “without regard to -place and time” (p. 76) and changing, for instance, Latin into Old -French, Old French into Classical French, and Classical French into -Modern French. His task, then, is to find out certain tendencies -operating at these various periods; these are ascribed to the Keltic -substratum, and Bröndal then passes in review a great many languages -spoken in districts where Kelts are known to have lived in former -times, in order to find the same tendencies there. If he succeeds in -this to his own satisfaction, it is only because the ‘tendencies’ -established are partly so vague that they will fit into any language, -partly so ill-defined phonetically that it becomes possible to press -different, nay, in some cases even directly contrary movements into -the same class. But considerations of space forbid me to enter on a -detailed criticism here. I must content myself with taking exception to -the principle that the effect of the ethnic substratum may show itself -several generations after the speech substitution took place. If Keltic -ever had ‘a finger in the pie,’ it must have been immediately on the -taking over of the new language. An influence exerted in such a time -of transition may have far-reaching after-effects, like anything else -in history, but this is not the same thing as asserting that a similar -modification of the language may take place after the lapse of some -centuries as an effect of the same cause. Suppose we have a series of -manuscripts, A, B, C, D, etc., of which B is copied from A, C from B, -etc., and that B has an error which is repeated in all the following -copies; now, if M suddenly agrees with A (which the copyist has never -seen), we infer that this reading is independent of A. In the same way -with a language: each individual learns it from his contemporaries, -but has no opportunity of hearing those who have died before his own -time. It is possible that the transition from _a_ to _æ_, in Old -English (as in _fæder_) is due to Keltic influence, but when we find, -many centuries later, that _a_ is changed into [æ] (the present sound) -in words which had not _æ_ in OE., e.g. _crab_, _hallow_, _act_, it -is impossible to ascribe this, as Bröndal does, to a ‘constant Keltic -idiom’ working through many generations who had never spoken or heard -any Keltic. ‘Atavism,’ which skips over one or more generations, is -unthinkable here, for words and sounds are nothing but habits acquired -by imitation. - -So far, then, our discussion of the substratum theory has brought us -no very positive results. One of the reasons why the theories put -forward of late years have been on the whole so unsatisfactory is that -they deal with speech substitutions that have taken place so far back -that absolutely nothing, or practically nothing, is known of those -displaced languages which are supposed to have coloured languages -now existing. What do we know beyond the mere name of Ligurians or -Veneti or Iberians? Of the Pre-Germanic and Pre-Keltic peoples we -know not even the names. As to the old Kelts who play such an eminent -rôle in all these speculations, we know extremely little about their -language at this distant date, and it is possible that in some cases, -at any rate, the Kelts may have been only comparatively small armies -conquering this or that country for a time, but leaving as few -linguistic traces behind them as, say, the armies of Napoleon in Russia -or the Cimbri and Teutoni in Italy. Linguists have turned from the -‘glottogonic’ speculations of Bopp and his disciples, only to indulge -in dialectogonic speculations of exactly the same visionary type. - - -XI.--§ 8. Types of Race-mixture. - -It would be a great mistake to suppose that the conditions, and -consequently the linguistic results, are always the same, whenever two -different races meet and assimilate. The chief classes of race-mixture -have been thus described in a valuable paper by George Hempl -(_Transactions of the American Philological Association_, XXIX, p. 31 -ff., 1898). - -(1) The conquerors are a comparatively small body, who become the -ruling class, but are not numerous enough to impose their language -on the country. They are forced to learn the language of their -subjects, and their grandchildren may come to know that language -better than they know the language of their ancestors. The language -of the conquerors dies out, but bequeaths to the native language its -terms pertaining to government, the army, and those other spheres of -life that the conquerors had specially under their control. Historic -examples are the cases of the Goths in Italy and Spain, the Franks -in Gaul, the Normans in France and the Norman-French in England. Of -course, the greater the number of the conquerors and the longer they -had been close neighbours of the people they conquered, or maintained -the bonds that united them to their mother-country, the greater was -their influence. Thus the influence of the Franks on the language of -France was greater than that of the Goths on the language of Spain, and -the influence of the Norman-French in England was greater still. Yet in -each case the minority ultimately succumbed. - -(2_a_) The conquest is made by many bodies of invaders, who bring with -them their whole households and are followed for a long period of time -by similar hordes of their kinsmen. The conquerors constitute the -upper and middle classes and a part of the lower classes of the new -community. The natives recede before the conquerors or become their -slaves: their speech is regarded as servile and is soon laid aside, -except for a few terms pertaining to the humbler callings, the names of -things peculiar to the country and place-names. Examples: Angles and -Saxons in Britain and Europeans in America and Australia, though in the -last case we can hardly speak of race-mixture between the natives and -the immigrants. - -(2_b_) A more powerful nation conquers the people and annexes its -territory, which is made a province, to which not only governors -and soldiers, but also merchants and even colonists are sent. These -become the upper class and the influential part of the middle class. -If centuries pass and the province is still subjected to the direct -influence of the ruling country, it will more and more imitate the -speech and the habits and customs of that country. Such was the history -of Italy, Spain and Gaul under the Romans; similar, also, is the story -of the Slavs of Eastern Germany and of the Dutch in New York State; -such is the process going on to-day among the French in Louisiana and -among the Germans in their original settlements in Pennsylvania. - -(3) Immigrants come in scattered bands and at different times; they -become servants or follow other humble callings. It is usually not to -their advantage to associate with their fellow-countrymen, but rather -to mingle with the native population. The better they learn to speak -the native tongue, the faster they get on in the world. If their -children in their dress or speech betray their foreign origin, they are -ridiculed as ‘Dutch’ or Irish, or whatever it may be. They therefore -take pains to rid themselves of all traces of their alien origin and -avoid using the speech of their parents. In this way vast numbers -of newcomers may be assimilated year by year till they constitute a -large part of the new race, while their language makes practically no -impression on the language of the country. This is the story of what is -going on in all parts of the United States to-day. - -It will be seen that in classes 1 and 3 the speech of the natives -prevails, while in the two classes comprised under 2 it is that of the -conqueror which eventually triumphs. Further, that, in all cases except -type 2_b_, that language prevails which is spoken by what is at the -time the majority. - -Sound substitution is found in class 3 in the case of foreigners -who come to America after they have learnt to speak, and of the -children of foreigners who keep up their original language at home. -If, however, while they are still young, they are chiefly thrown with -English-speaking people, they usually gain a thorough mastery of the -English language; thus most of the children, and practically all of -the grandchildren, of immigrants, by the time they are grown-up, speak -English without foreign taint. Their origin has thus no permanent -influence on their adopted language. The same thing is true when a -small ruling minority drops its foreign speech and learns that of the -majority (class 1), and practically also (class 2_a_) when a native -minority succumbs to a foreign majority, though here the ultimate -language may be slightly influenced by the native dialect. - -It is different with class 2_b_: when a whole population comes in the -course of centuries to surrender its natural speech for that of a -ruling minority, sound substitution plays an important part, and to a -great extent determines the character and future of the language. Hempl -here agrees with Hirt in seeing in this fact the explanation of much -(N.B. not all!) of the difference between the Romanic languages and of -the difference between natural High German and High German spoken in -Low German territory, and he is therefore not surprised when he is told -by Nissen that the dialects of modern Italy correspond geographically -pretty closely to the non-Latin languages once spoken in the Peninsula. -But he severely criticizes Hirt for going so far as to explain the -differentiation of Aryan speech by the theory of sound substitution. -Hirt assumes conditions like those in class 1, and yet thinks that the -results would be like those of class 2_a_. “It is essential to Hirt’s -theory that the conquering bodies of Indo-Europeans should be small -compared with the number of the people they conquered.... If we wish -to prove that the differentiation of Indo-European speech was like -the differentiation of Romance speech, we must be able to show that -the conditions under which the differentiations took place were alike -or equivalent. But even a cursory examination of the manner in which -the Romance countries were Romanized ... will make it clear that no -parallel could possibly be drawn between the conditions under which the -Romance languages arose and those that we can suppose to have existed -while the Indo-European languages took shape.” Hempl also criticizes -the way in which the Germanic consonant-shift is supposed by Hirt to be -due to sound-substitution: when instead of the original - - t th d dh - -Germanic has - - þ þ t ð, - -these latter sounds, on Hirt’s theory, must be either the native sounds -that the conquered people substituted for the original sounds, or else -they have developed out of such sounds as the natives substituted. If -the first be true, we ask ourselves why the conquered people did not -use their _t_ for the Indo-European _t_, instead of substituting it -for _d_, and then substituting _þ_ for the Indo-European _t_. If the -second supposition be true, the native population introduced into the -language sounds very similar to the original _t_, _th_, _d_, _dh_, and -all the change from that slightly variant form to the one that we find -in Germanic was of subsequent development--and must be explained by the -usual methods after all. - -I have dwelt so long on Hempl’s paper because, in spite of its (to -my mind) fundamental importance, it has been generally overlooked by -supporters of the substratum theory. To construct a true theory, it -will be necessary to examine the largest possible number of facts -with regard to race-mixture capable of being tested by scientific -methods. In this connexion the observations of Lenz in South America -and of Pușcariu in Rumania are especially valuable. The former found -that the Spanish spoken in Chile was greatly influenced in its sounds -by the speech of the native Araucanians (see _Zeitschr. f. roman. -Philologie_, 17. 188 ff., 1893). Now, what were the facts in regard -to the population speaking this language? The immigrants were chiefly -men, who in many cases necessarily married native women and left -the care of their children to a great extent in the hands of Indian -servants. As the natives were more warlike than in many other parts -of South America, there was for a very long time a continuous influx -of Spanish soldiers, many of whom, after a short time, settled down -peacefully in the country. More Spanish soldiers, indeed, arrived in -Chile in the course of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries than in -the whole of the rest of South America. Accordingly, by the beginning -of the eighteenth century the Indians had been either driven back or -else assimilated, and at the beginning of the War of Liberation early -in the nineteenth century Chile was the only State in which there was -a uniform Spanish-speaking population. In the greater part of Chile -the population is denser than anywhere else in South America, and -this population speaks nothing but Spanish, while in Peru and Bolivia -nearly the whole rural population still speaks more or less exclusively -Keshua or Aimará, and these languages are also used occasionally, or -at any rate understood, by the whites. Chile is thus the only country -in which a real Spanish people’s dialect could develop. (In Hempl’s -classification this would be a typical case of class 2_a_.) In the -other Spanish-American countries the Spanish-speakers are confined to -the upper ruling class, there being practically no lower class with -Spanish as its mother-tongue, except in a couple of big cities. Thus -we understand that the Peruvian who has learnt his Spanish at school -has a purer Castilian pronunciation than the Chilean; yet, apart from -pronunciation, the educated Chilean’s Spanish is much more correct -and fluent than that of the other South Americans, whose language is -stiff and vocabulary scanty, because they have first learnt some Indian -language in childhood. Lenz’s Chileans, who have often been invoked -by the adherents of the unlimited substratum theory, thus really -serve to show that sound substitution takes place only under certain -well-defined conditions. - -Pușcariu (in _Prinzipienfragen der romanischen Sprachwissenschaft_, -_Beihefte zur Zschr. f. rom. Phil._, 1910) says that in a Saxon village -which had been almost completely Rumanianized he had once talked -for hours with a peasant without noticing that he was not a native -Rumanian: he was, however, a Saxon, who spoke Saxon with his wife, but -Rumanian with his son, because the latter language was easier to him, -as he had acquired the Rumanian basis of articulation. Here, then, -there was no sound substitution, and in general we may say that the -less related two languages are, the fewer will be the traces of the -original language left on the new language (p. 49). The reason must be -that people who naturally speak a closely related language are easily -understood even when their acquired speech has a tinge of dialect: -there is thus no inducement for them to give up their pronunciation. -Pușcariu also found that it was much more difficult for him to rid -himself of his dialectal traits in Rumanian than to acquire a correct -pronunciation of German or French. He therefore disbelieves in a direct -influence exerted by the indigenous languages on the formation of the -Romanic languages (and thus goes much further than Hempl). All these -languages, and particularly Rumanian, during the first centuries -of the Middle Ages underwent radical transformations not paralleled -in the thousand years ensuing. This may have been partly due to an -influence exerted by ethnic mixture on the whole character of the young -nations and through that also on their language. But other factors have -certainly also played an important rôle, especially the grouping round -new centres with other political aims than those of ancient Rome, and -consequent isolation from the rest of the Romanic peoples. Add to this -the very important emancipation of the ordinary conversational language -from the yoke of Latin. In the first Christian centuries the influence -of Latin was so overpowering in official life and in the schools that -it obstructed a natural development. But soon after the third century -the educational level rapidly sank, and political events broke the -power not only of Rome, but also of its language. The speech of the -masses, which had been held in fetters for so long, now asserted itself -in full freedom and with elemental violence, the result being those -far-reaching changes by which the Romanic languages are marked off from -Latin. Language and nation or race must not be confounded: witness -Rumania, whose language shows very few dialectal variations, though the -populations of its different provinces are ethnically quite distinct -(ib. p. 51). - - -XI.--§ 9. Summary. - -The general impression gathered from the preceding investigation must -be that it is impossible to ascribe to an ethnic substratum all the -changes and dialectal differentiations which some linguists explain as -due to this sole cause. Many other influences must have been at work, -among which an interruption of intercourse created by natural obstacles -or social conditions of various kinds would be of prime importance. -If we take ethnic substrata as the main or sole source of dialectal -differentiation, it will be hard to account for the differences between -Icelandic and Norwegian, for Iceland was very sparsely inhabited when -the ‘land-taking’ took place, and still harder to account for the -very great divergences that we witness between the dialects spoken -in the Faroe Islands. A mere turning over the leaves of Bennike and -Kristensen’s maps of Danish dialects (or the corresponding maps of -France) will show the impossibility of explaining the crisscross of -boundaries of various phonetic phenomena as entirely due to ethnical -differences in the aborigines. On the other hand, the speech of Russian -peasants is said to be remarkably free from dialectal divergences, in -spite of the fact that it has spread in comparatively recent times over -districts inhabited by populations with languages of totally different -types (Finnic, Turkish, Tataric). I thus incline to think that sound -substitution cannot have produced radical changes, but has only played -a minor part in the development of languages. There are, perhaps, -also interesting things to be learnt from conditions in Finland. -Here Swedish has for many centuries been the language of the ruling -minority, and it was only in the course of the nineteenth century that -Finnish attained to the dignity of a literary language. The sound -systems of Swedish and Finnish are extremely unlike: Finnish lacks many -of the Swedish sounds, such as _b_, _d_ (what is written _d_ is either -mute or else a kind of weak _r_), _g_ and _f_. No word can begin with -more than one consonant, consequently Swedish _strand_ and _skräddare_, -‘tailor,’ are represented in the form of the loan-words _ranta_ and -_räätäli_. Now, in spite of the fact that most Swedish-speaking people -have probably spoken Finnish as children and have had Finnish servants -and playfellows to teach them the language, none of these peculiarities -have influenced their Swedish: what makes them recognizable as hailing -from Finland (‘finska brytningen’) is not simplification of consonant -groups or substitution of _p_ for _b_, etc., but such small things -as the omission of the ‘compound tone,’ the tendency to lengthen the -second consonant in groups like _ns_, and European (‘back’) _u_ instead -of the Swedish mixed vowel. - -But if sound substitution as a result of race-mixture and of conquest -cannot have played any very considerable part in the differentiation -of languages as wholes, there is another domain in which sound -substitution is very important, that is, in the shape which loan-words -take in the languages into which they are introduced. However good the -pronunciation of the first introducer of a word may have been, it is -clear that when a word is extensively used by people with no intimate -and first-hand knowledge of the language from which it was taken, most -of them will tend to pronounce it with the only sounds with which they -are familiar, those of their own language. Thus we see that the English -and Russians, who have no [y] in their own speech, substitute for it -the combination [ju, iu] in recent loans from French. Scandinavians -have no voiced [z] and [ʒ] and therefore, in such loans from French or -English as _kusine_, _budget_, _jockey_, etc., substitute the voiceless -[s] and [ʃj], or [sj]. The English will make a diphthong of the final -vowels of such words as _bouquet_, _beau_ [bu·kei, bou], and will slur -the _r_ of such French words as _boulevard_, etc. The same transference -of speech habits from one’s native language also affects such important -things as quantity, stress and tone: the English have no final short -stressed vowels, such as are found in _bouquet_, _beau_; hence their -tendency to lengthen as well as diphthongize these sounds, while the -French will stress the final syllable of recent loans, such as _jury_, -_reporter_. These phenomena are so universal and so well known that -they need no further illustration. - -The more familiar such loan-words are, the more unnatural it would be -to pronounce them with foreign sounds or according to foreign rules -of quantity and stress; for this means in each case a shunting of the -whole speech-apparatus on to a different track for one or two words and -then shifting back to the original ‘basis of articulation’--an effort -that many speakers are quite incapable of and one that in any case -interferes with the natural and easy flow of speech. - - -XI.--§ 10. General Theory of Loan-words. - -In the last paragraphs we have already broached a very important -subject, that of loan-words.[47] No language is entirely free from -borrowed words, because no nation has ever been completely isolated. -Contact with other nations inevitably leads to borrowings, though their -number may vary very considerably. Here we meet with a fundamental -principle, first formulated by E. Windisch (in his paper “Zur Theorie -der Mischsprachen und Lehnwörter,” _Verh. d. sächsischen Gesellsch. d. -Wissensch._, XLIX, 1897, p. 107 ff.): “It is not the foreign language -a nation learns that turns into a mixed language, but its own native -language becomes mixed under the influence of a foreign language.” -When we try to learn and talk a foreign tongue we do not introduce -into it words taken from our own language; our endeavour will always -be to speak the other language as purely as possible, and generally -we are painfully conscious of every native word that we intrude into -phrases framed in the other tongue. But what we thus avoid in speaking -a foreign language we very often do in our own. Frederick the Great -prided himself on his good French, and in his French writings we do not -find a single German word, but whenever he wrote German his sentences -were full of French words and phrases. This being the general practice, -we now understand why so few Keltic words were taken over into French -and English. There was nothing to induce the ruling classes to learn -the language of the inferior natives: it could never be fashionable for -them to show an acquaintance with a despised tongue by using now and -then a Keltic word. On the other hand, the Kelt would have to learn the -language of his masters, and learn it well; and he would even among his -comrades like to show off his knowledge by interlarding his speech with -words and turns from the language of his betters. Loan-words always -show a superiority of the nation from whose language they are borrowed, -though this superiority may be of many different kinds. - -In the first place, it need not be extensive: indeed, in some of the -most typical cases it is of a very partial character and touches -only on one very special point. I refer to those instances in which -a district or a people is in possession of some special thing or -product wanted by some other nation and not produced in that country. -Here quite naturally the name used by the natives is taken over along -with the thing. Obvious examples are the names of various drinks: -_wine_ is a loan from Latin, _tea_ from Chinese, _coffee_ from Arabic, -_chocolate_ from Mexican, and _punch_ from Hindustani. A certain type -of carriage was introduced about 1500 from Hungary and is known in most -European languages by its Magyar name: E. _coach_, G. _kutsche_, etc. -_Moccasin_ is from Algonquin, _bamboo_ from Malay, _tulip_ and _turban_ -(ultimately the same word) from Persian. A slightly different case is -when some previously unknown plant or animal is made known through -some foreign nation, as when we have taken the name of _jasmine_ -from Persian, _chimpanzee_ from some African, and _tapir_ from some -Brazilian language. It is characteristic of all words of this kind that -only a few of them are taken from each foreign language, and that they -have nearly all of them gone the round of all civilized languages, so -that they are now known practically all over the world. - -Other loan-words form larger groups and bear witness to the cultural -superiority of some nation in some one specified sphere of activity or -branch of knowledge: such are the Arabic words relating to mathematics -and astronomy (_algebra_, _zero_, _cipher_, _azimuth_, _zenith_, in -related fields _tariff_, _alkali_, _alcohol_), the Italian words -relating to music (_piano_, _allegro_, _andante_, _solo_, _soprano_, -etc.) and commerce (_bank_, _bankrupt_, _balance_, _traffic_, _ducat_, -_florin_)--one need not accumulate examples, as everybody interested -in the subject of this book will be able to supply a great many from -his own reading. The most comprehensive groups of this kind are those -French, Latin and Greek words that have flooded the whole world of -Western civilization from the Middle Ages and the Renaissance and have -given a family-character to all those parts of the vocabularies of -otherwise different languages which are concerned with the highest -intellectual and technical activities. See the detailed discussion of -these strata of loan-words in English in GS ch. v and vi. - -When one nation has imbibed for centuries the cultural influence of -another, its language may have become so infiltrated with words from -the other language that these are found in most sentences, at any -rate in nearly every sentence dealing with things above the simplest -material necessities. The best-known examples are English since the -influx of French and classical words, and Turkish with its wholesale -importations from Arabic. Another example is Basque, in which nearly -all expressions for religious and spiritual ideas are Romanic. Basque -is naturally very poor in words for general ideas; it has names -for special kinds of trees, but ‘tree’ is _arbolia_, from Spanish -_árbol_, ‘animal’ is _animale_, ‘colour’ _colore_, ‘plant’ _planta_ -or _landare_, ‘flower’ _lore_ or _lili_, ‘thing’ _gauza_, ‘time’ -_dembora_. Thus also many of its names for utensils and garments, -weights and measures, arms, etc., are borrowed; ‘king’ is _errege_, -‘law’ _lege_, _lage_, ‘master’ _maisu_, etc. (See _Zs. f. roman. -Phil._, 17. 140 ff.) - -In a great many cases linguistic borrowing must be considered a -necessity, but this is not always so. When a nation has once got into -the habit of borrowing words, people will very often use foreign words -where it would have been perfectly possible to express their ideas by -means of native speech-material, the reason for going out of one’s own -language being in some cases the desire to be thought fashionable or -refined through interlarding one’s speech with foreign words, in others -simply laziness, as is very often the case when people are rendering -thoughts they have heard or read in a foreign tongue. Translators -are responsible for the great majority of these intrusive words, -which might have been avoided by a resort to native composition or -derivation, or very often by turning the sentence a little differently -from the foreign text. The most thoroughgoing speech mixtures are due -much less to real race-mixture than to continued cultural contact, -especially of a literary character, as is seen very clearly in English, -where the Romanic element is only to a very small extent referable to -the Norman conquerors, and far more to the peaceful relations of the -following centuries. That Greek and Latin words have come in through -the medium of literature hardly needs saying. Many of these words -are superfluous: “The native words _cold_, _cool_, _chilly_, _icy_, -_frosty_, might have seemed sufficient for all purposes, without any -necessity for importing _frigid_, _gelid_ and _algid_, which, as a -matter of fact, are found neither in Shakespeare nor in the Authorized -Version of the Bible nor in the poetical works of Milton, Pope, Cowper -and Shelley” (GS § 136). But on the other hand it cannot be denied -that the imported words have in many instances enriched the language -through enabling its users to obtain greater variety and to find -expressions for many subtle shades of thought. The question of the -value of loan-words cannot be dismissed offhand, as the ‘purists’ in -many countries are inclined to imagine, with the dictum that foreign -words should be shunned like the plague, but requires for its solution -a careful consideration of the merits and demerits of each separate -foreign term viewed in connexion with the native resources for -expressing that particular idea. - - -XI.--§ 11. Classes of Loan-words. - -It is quite natural that there should be a much greater inclination -everywhere to borrow ‘full’ words (substantives, adjectives, notional -verbs) than ‘empty’ words (pronouns, prepositions, conjunctions, -auxiliary verbs), to which class most of the ‘grammatical’ words -belong. But there is no hard-and-fast limit between the two classes. -It is rare for a language to take such words as numerals from another -language; yet examples are found here and there--thus, in connexion -with special games, etc. Until comparatively recently, dicers and -backgammon-players counted in England by means of the French words -_ace_, _deuce_, _tray_, _cater_, _cinque_, _size_, and with the English -game of lawn tennis the English way of counting (fifteen love, etc.) -has been lately adopted in Russia and to some extent also in Denmark. -In some parts of England Welsh numerals were until comparatively recent -times used in the counting of sheep. Cattle-drivers in Jutland used -to count from 20 to 90 in Low German learnt in Hamburg and Holstein, -where they sold their cattle. In this case the clumsiness and want of -perspicuity of the Danish expressions (_halvtredsindstyve_ for Low -German _föfdix_, etc.) may have been one of the reasons for preferring -the German words; in the same way the clumsiness of the Eskimo way of -counting (“third toe on the second foot of the fourth man,” etc.) has -favoured the introduction into Greenlandic of the Danish words for 100 -and 1,000: with an Eskimo ending, _untritigdlit_ and _tusintigdlit_. -Most Japanese numerals are Chinese. And of course _million_ and -_milliard_ are used in most civilized countries. - -Prepositions, too, are rarely borrowed by one language from another. -Yet the Latin (Ital.) _per_ is used in English, German and Danish, and -the French _à_ in the two latter languages, and both are extending -their domain beyond the commercial language in which they were first -used. The Greek _kata_, at first also commercial, has in Spanish found -admission into the ordinary language and has become the pronoun _cada_ -‘each.’ - -Personal and demonstrative pronouns, articles and the like are scarcely -ever taken over from one language to another. They are so definitely -woven into the innermost texture of a language that no one would think -of giving them up, however much he might like to adorn his speech with -words from a foreign source. If, therefore, in one instance we find -a case of a language borrowing words of this kind, we are justified -in thinking that exceptional causes must have been at work, and -such really proves to be the case in English, which has adopted the -Scandinavian forms _they_, _them_, _their_. It is usual to speak of -English as being a mixture of native Old English (‘Anglo-Saxon’) and -French, but as a matter of fact the French influence, powerful as it -is in the vocabulary and patent as it is to the eyes of everybody, -is superficial in comparison with the influence exercised in a much -subtler way by the Scandinavian settlers in the North of England. The -French influence is different in extent, but not in kind, from the -French influence on German or the old Gothonic influence on Finnic; -it is perhaps best compared with the German influence on Danish in -the Middle Ages. But the Scandinavian influence on English is of a -different kind. The number of Danish and Norwegian settlers in England -must have been very large, as is shown by the number of Scandinavian -place-names; yet that does not account for everything. A most important -factor was the great similarity of the two languages, in spite of -numerous points of difference. Accordingly, when their fighting was -over, the invaders and the original population would to some extent be -able to make themselves understood by one another, like people talking -two dialects of the same language, or like students from Copenhagen -and from Lund nowadays. Many of the most common words were absolutely -identical, and others differed only slightly. Hence it comes that in -the Middle English texts we find a great many double forms of the same -word, one English and the other Scandinavian, used side by side, some -of these doublets even surviving till the present day, though now -differentiated in sense (e.g. _whole_, _hale_; _no_, _nay_; _from_, -_fro_; _shirt_, _skirt_), while in other cases one only of the two -forms, either the native or the Scandinavian, has survived; thus the -Scandinavian _sister_ and _egg_ have ousted the English _sweostor_ and -_ey_. We find, therefore, a great many words adopted of a kind not -usually borrowed; thus, everyday verbs and adjectives like _take_, -_call_, _hit_, _die_, _ill_, _ugly_, _wrong_, and among substantives -such non-technical ones as _fellow_, _sky_, _skin_, _wing_, etc. (For -details see my GS ch. iv.) All this indicates an intimate fusion of the -two races and of the two languages, such as is not provided for in any -of the classes described by Hempl (above, § 8). In most speech-mixtures -the various elements remain distinct and can be separated, just as -after shuffling a pack of cards you can pick out the hearts, spades, -etc.; but in the case of English and Scandinavian we have a subtler and -more intimate fusion, very much as when you put a lump of sugar into a -cup of tea and a few minutes afterwards are quite unable to say which -is tea and which is sugar. - - -XI.--§ 12. Influence on Grammar. - -The question has often been raised whether speech-mixture affects -the grammar of a language which has borrowed largely from some other -language. The older view is expressed pointedly by Whitney (L 199): -“Such a thing as a language with a mixed grammatical apparatus has -never come under the cognizance of linguistic students: it would -be to them a monstrosity; it seems an impossibility.” This is an -exaggeration, and cannot be justified, for the simple reason that -the vocabulary of a language and its ‘grammatical apparatus’ cannot -be nicely separated in the way presupposed: indeed, much of the -borrowed material mentioned in our last paragraphs does belong to the -grammatical apparatus. But there is, of course, some truth in Whitney’s -dictum. When a word is borrowed it is not as a rule taken over with -all the elaborate flexion which may belong to it in its original home; -as a rule, one form only is adopted, it may be the nominative or some -other case of a noun, the infinitive or the present or the naked -stem of a verb. This form is then either used unchanged or with the -endings of the adopting language, generally those of the most ‘regular’ -declension or conjugation. It is an exceptional case when more than -one flexional form is taken over, and this case does not occur in -really popular loans. In learned usage we find in older Danish such -case-flexion as gen. _Christi_, dat. _Christo_, by the side of nom. -_Christus_, also, e.g., _i theatro_, and still sometimes in German we -have the same usage: e.g. _mit den pronominibus_. In a somewhat greater -number of instances the plural form is adopted as well as the singular -form, as in English _fungi_, _formulæ_, _phenomena_, _seraphim_, etc., -but the natural tendency is always towards using the native endings, -_funguses_, _formulas_, etc., and this has prevailed in all popular -words, e.g. _ideas_, _circuses_, _museums_. As the formation of cases, -tenses, etc., in different languages is often very irregular, and the -distinctive marks are often so intimately connected with the kernel of -the word and so unsubstantial as not to be easily distinguished, it -is quite natural that no one should think of borrowing such endings, -etc., and applying them to native words. Schuchardt once thought that -the English genitive ending _s_ had been adopted into Indo-Portuguese -(in the East Indies), where _gobernadors casa_ stands for ‘governor’s -house,’ but he now explains the form more correctly as originating in -the possessive pronoun _su_: _gobernador su casa_ (dem g. sein haus, -_Sitzungsber. der preuss. Akademie_, 1917, 524). - -It was at one time commonly held that the English plural ending _s_, -which in Old English was restricted in its application, owes its -extension to the influence of French. This theory, I believe, was -finally disposed of by the six decisive arguments I brought forward -against it in 1891 (reprinted in ChE § 39). But after what has been -said above on the Scandinavian influence, I incline to think that E. -Classen is right in thinking that the Danes count for something in -bringing about the final victory of _-s_ over its competitor _-n_, -for the Danes had no plural in _-n_, and _-s_ reminded them of their -own _-r_ (_Mod. Language Rev._ 14. 94; cf. also _-s_ in the third -person of verbs, Scand. _-r_). Apart from this particular point, it is -quite natural that the Scandinavians should have exercised a general -levelling influence on the English language, as many niceties of -grammar would easily be sacrificed where mutual intelligibility was so -largely brought about by the common vocabulary. Accordingly, we find -that in the regions in which the Danish settlements were thickest the -wearing away of grammatical forms was a couple of centuries in advance -of the same process in the southern parts of the country. - -Derivative endings certainly belong to the ‘grammatical apparatus’ of -a language; yet many such endings have been taken over into another -language as parts of borrowed words and have then been freely combined -with native speech-material. The phenomenon is extremely frequent -in English, where we have, for instance, the Romanic endings _-ess_ -(_shepherdess_, _seeress_), _-ment_ (_endearment_, _bewilderment_), -_-age_ (_mileage_, _cleavage_, _shortage_), _-ance_ (_hindrance_, -_forbearance_) and many more. In Danish and German the number of -similar instances is much more restricted, yet we have, for instance, -recent words in _-isme_, _-ismus_ and _-ianer_; cf. also older -words like _bageri_, _bäckerei_, etc. It is the same with prefixes: -English has formed many words with _de-_, _co-_, _inter-_, _pre-_, -_anti-_ and other classical prefixes: _de-anglicize_, _co-godfather_, -_inter-marriage_, _at pre-war prices_, _anti-slavery_, etc. (quotations -in my GS § 124; cf. MEG ii. 14. 66). _Ex-_ has established itself in -many languages: _ex-king_, _ex-roi_, _ex-konge_, _ex-könig_, etc. In -Danish the prefix _be-_, borrowed from German, is used very extensively -with native words: _bebrejde_, _bebo_, _bebygge_, and this is not the -only German prefix that is productive in the Scandinavian languages. - -With regard to syntax, very little can be said except in a general -way: languages certainly do influence each other syntactically, and -those who know a foreign language only imperfectly are apt to transfer -to it methods of construction from their own tongue. Many instances -of this have been collected by Schuchardt, SlD. But it is doubtful -whether these syntactical influences have the same _permanent_ effects -on any language as those exerted on one’s own language by the habit -of translating foreign works into it: in this purely literary way -a great many idioms and turns of phrases have been introduced into -English, German and the Scandinavian languages from French and Latin, -and into Danish and Swedish from German. The accusative and infinitive -construction, which had only a very restricted use in Old English, has -very considerably extended its domain through Latin influence, and the -so-called ‘absolute construction’ (in my own grammatical terminology -called ‘duplex subjunct’) seems to be entirely due to imitation -of Latin syntax. In the Balkan tongues there are some interesting -instances of syntactical agreement between various languages, which -must be due to oral influence through the necessity imposed on border -peoples of passing continually from one language to another: the -infinitive has disappeared from Greek, Rumanian and Albanian, and the -definite article is placed after the substantive in Rumanian, Albanian -and Bulgarian. - - -XI.--§ 13. Translation-loans. - -Besides direct borrowings we have also indirect borrowings or -‘translation loan-words,’ words modelled more or less closely on -foreign ones, though consisting of native speech-material. I take some -examples from the very full and able paper “Notes sur les Calques -Linguistiques” contributed by Kr. Sandfeld to the _Festschrift -Vilh. Thomsen_, 1912: _ædificatio_: G. erbauung, Dan. opbyggelse; -_æquilibrium_: G. gleichgewicht, Dan. ligevægt; _beneficium_: G. -wohltat, Dan. velgerning; _conscientia_: Goth. miþwissi, G. gewissen, -Dan. samvittighed, Swed. samvete, Russ. soznanie; _omnipotens_: -E. almighty, G. allmächtig, Dan. almægtig; _arrière-pensée_: -hintergedanke, bagtanke; _bien-être_: wohlsein, velvære; _exposition_: -austellung, udstilling; etc. Sandfeld gives many more examples, and as -he has in most instances been able to give also corresponding words -from various Slavonic languages as well as from Magyar, Finnic, etc., -he rightly concludes that his collections serve to throw light on -that community in thought and expression which Bally has well termed -“la mentalité européenne.” (But it will be seen that English differs -from most European languages in having a much greater propensity to -swallowing foreign words raw, as it were, than to translating them.) - -FOOTNOTES: - -[42] Cf. against the assumption of Keltic influence in this instance -Meyer-Lübke, _Die Romanischen Sprachen, Kultur der Gegenwart_, p. 457, -and Ettmayer in Streitberg’s _Gesch._ 2. 265. H. Mutschmann, _Phonology -of the North-Eastern Scotch Dialect_, 1909, p. 53, thinks that the -fronting of _u_ in Scotch is similar to that of Latin _ū_ on Gallic -territory, and like it is ascribable to the Keltic inhabitants: he -forgets, however, that the corresponding fronting is not found in the -Keltic spoken in Scotland. Moreover, the complicated Scotch phenomena -cannot be compared with the French transition, for the sound of [u] -remains in many cases, and [i] generally corresponds to earlier [o], -whatever the explanation may be. - -[43] Curiously enough, Feist uses this argument himself against Hirt in -his earlier paper, PBB 37. 121. - -[44] Feist, on the other hand (PBB 36. 329), makes the Kelts -responsible for the shift from _p_ to _f_, because initial _p_ -disappears in Keltic: but disappearance is not the same thing as being -changed into a spirant, and there is no necessity for assuming that the -sound before disappearing had been changed into _f_. Besides, it is -characteristic of the Gothonic shift that it affects all stops equally, -without regard to the place of articulation, while the Keltic change -affects only the one sound _p_. - -[45] ME. _knowleche_, _stonës_ [stɔ·nes], _off_, _with_ [wiþ] become -MnE. _knowledge_, _stones_ [stounz], _of_ [ɔv, əv], _with_ [wið], -etc.; cf. also _possess_, _discern_ with [z], _exert_ with [gz], but -_exercise_ with [ks]. See my _Studier over eng. kasus_, 1891, 178 ff., -now MEG i. 6. 5 ff., and (for the phonetic explanation) LPh p. 121. - -[46] Sharp tenues and aspirated tenues may alternate even in the life -of one individual, as I have observed in the case of my own son, who -at the age of 1.9 used the sharp French sounds, but five months later -substituted strongly aspirated _p_, _t_, _k_, with even stronger -aspiration than the usual Danish sounds, which it took him ten or -eleven months to learn with perfect certainty. - -[47] I use the terms _loan-words_ and _borrowed words_ because they -are convenient and firmly established, not because they are exact. -There are two essential respects in which linguistic borrowing differs -from the borrowing of, say, a knife or money: the lender does not -deprive himself of the use of the word any more than if it had not been -borrowed by the other party, and the borrower is under no obligation to -return the word at any future time. Linguistic ‘borrowing’ is really -nothing but imitation, and the only way in which it differs from a -child’s imitation of its parents’ speech is that here something is -imitated which forms a part of a speech that is not imitated as a whole. - - - - -CHAPTER XII - -PIDGIN AND CONGENERS - - § 1. Beach-la-Mar. § 2. Grammar. § 3. Sounds. § 4. Pidgin. § 5. - Grammar, etc. § 6. General Theory. § 7. Mauritius Creole. § 8. - Chinook Jargon. § 9. Chinook continued. § 10. Makeshift Languages. § - 11. Romanic Languages. - - -XII.--§ 1. Beach-la-Mar. - -As a first typical example of a whole class of languages now found in -many parts of the world where people of European civilization have -come into contact with men of other races, we may take the so-called -_Beach-la-mar_ (or Beche-le-mar, or Beche de mer English);[48] it is -also sometimes called Sandalwood English. It is spoken and understood -all over the Western Pacific, its spread being largely due to the -fact that the practice of ‘blackbirding’ often brought together on -the same plantation many natives from different islands with mutually -incomprehensible languages, whose only means of communication was -the broken English they had picked up from the whites. And now the -natives learn this language from each other, while in many places the -few Europeans have to learn it from the islanders. “Thus the native -use of Pidgin-English lays down the rules by which the Europeans let -themselves be guided when learning it. Even Englishmen do not find it -quite easy at the beginning to understand Pidgin-English, and have to -learn it before they are able to speak it properly” (Landtman). - -I shall now try to give some idea of the structure of this lingo. - -The vocabulary is nearly all English. Even most of the words which -ultimately go back to other languages have been admitted only because -the English with whom the islanders were thrown into contact had -previously adopted them into their own speech, so that the islanders -were justified in believing that they were really English. This is true -of the Spanish or Portuguese _savvy_, ‘to know,’ and _pickaninny_, -‘child’ or ‘little one’ (a favourite in many languages on account -of its symbolic sound; see Ch. XX § 8), as well as the Amerindian -_tomahawk_, which in the whole of Australia is the usual word for a -small axe. And if we find in Beach-la-mar the two Maori words _tapu_ -or _taboo_ and _kai_, or more often _kaikai_, ‘to eat’ or ‘food,’ -they have probably got into the language through English--we know -that both are very extensively used in Australia, while the former is -known all over the civilized world. _Likkilik_ or _liklik_, ‘small, -almost,’ is said to be from a Polynesian word _liki_, but may be -really a perversion of Engl. _little_. Landtman gives a few words from -unknown languages used by the Kiwais, though not derived from their own -language. The rest of the words found in my sources are English, though -not always pure English, in so far as their signification is often -curiously distorted. - -_Nusipepa_ means ‘a letter, any written or printed document,’ _mary_ is -the general term for ‘woman’ (cf. above, p. 118), _pisupo_ (peasoup) -for all foreign foods which are preserved in tins; _squareface_, the -sailor’s name for a square gin-bottle, is extended to all forms of -glassware, no matter what the shape. One of the earliest seafarers is -said to have left a bull and a cow on one of the islands and to have -mentioned these two words together; the natives took them as one word, -and now _bullamacow_ or _pulumakau_ means ‘cattle, beef, also tinned -beef’; _pulomokau_ is now given as a native word in a dictionary of -the Fijian language.[49] _Bulopenn_, which means ‘ornament,’ is said -to be nothing but the English _blue paint_. All this shows the purely -accidental character of many of the linguistic acquisitions of the -Polynesians. - -As the vocabulary is extremely limited, composite expressions are -sometimes resorted to in order to express ideas for which we have -simple words, and not unfrequently the devices used appear to us very -clumsy or even comical. A piano is called ‘big fellow bokus (box) you -fight him he cry,’ and a concertina ‘little fellow bokus you shove -him he cry, you pull him he cry.’ _Woman he got faminil_ (‘family’) -_inside_ means ‘she is with child.’ _Inside_ is also used extensively -about mental states: _jump inside_ ‘be startled,’ _inside tell himself_ -‘to consider,’ _inside bad_ ‘grieved or sorry,’ _feel inside_ ‘to -know,’ _feel another kind inside_ ‘to change one’s mind.’ _My throat he -fast_ ‘I was dumb.’ _He took daylight a long time_ ‘lay awake.’ _Bring -fellow belong make open bottle_ ‘bring me a corkscrew.’ _Water belong -stink_ ‘perfumery.’ The idea of being bald is thus expressed: _grass -belong head belong him all he die finish_, or with another variant, -_coconut belong him grass no stop_, for _coconut_ is taken from English -slang in the sense ‘head’ (Schuchardt has the sentence: _You no savvy -that fellow white man coconut belong him no grass?_). For ‘feather’ the -combination _grass belong pigeon_ is used, _pigeon_ being a general -term for any bird. - -A man who wanted to borrow a saw, the word for which he had forgotten, -said: ‘You give me brother belong tomahawk, he come he go.’ A servant -who had been to Queensland, where he saw a train, on his return called -it ‘steamer he walk about along bush.’ Natives who watched Landtman -when he enclosed letters in envelopes named the latter ‘house belong -letter.’ Many of these expressions are thus picturesque descriptions -made on the spur of the moment if the proper word is not known. - - -XII.--§ 2. Grammar. - -These phrases have already illustrated some points of the very simple -grammar of this lingo. Words have only one form, and what is in our -language expressed by flexional forms is either left unexpressed or -else indicated by auxiliary words. The plural of nouns is like the -singular (though the form _men_ is found in my texts alongside of -_man_); when necessary, the plural is indicated by means of a prefixed -_all_: _all he talk_ ‘they say’ (also _him fellow all_ ‘they’); _all -man_ ‘everybody’; a more indefinite plural is _plenty man_ or _full up -man_. For ‘we’ is said _me two fella_ or _me three fellow_, as the case -may be; _me two fellow Lagia_ means ‘I and Lagia.’ If there are more, -_me altogether man_ or _me plenty man_ may be said, though _we_ is also -in use. _Fellow_ (_fella_) is a much-vexed word; it is required, or -at any rate often used, after most pronouns, thus, _that fellow hat_, -_this fellow knife_, _me fellow_, _you fellow_, _him fellow_ (not _he -fellow_); it is found very often after an adjective and seems to be -required to prop up the adjective before the substantive: _big fellow -name_, _big fellow tobacco_, _another fellow man_. In other cases no -_fellow_ is used, and it seems difficult to give definite rules; after -a numeral it is frequent: _two fellow men_ (_man_?), _three fellow -bottle_. There is a curious employment in _ten fellow ten one fellow_, -which means 101. It is used adverbially in _that man he cry big fellow_ -‘he cries loudly.’ - -The genitive is expressed by means of _belong_ (or _belong-a_, _long_, -_along_), which also serves for other prepositional relations. -Examples: _tail belong him_, _pappa belong me_, _wife belong you_, -_belly belong me walk about too much_ (I was seasick), _me savvee talk -along white man_; _rope along bush_ means liana. _Missis! man belong -bullamacow him stop_ (the butcher has come). _What for you wipe hands -belong-a you on clothes belong esseppoon?_ (spoon, i.e. napkin). Cf. -above the expressions for ‘bald.’ _Piccaninny belong banana_ ‘a young -b. plant.’ _Belong_ also naturally means ‘to live in, be a native -of’; _boy belong island_, _he belong Burri-burrigan_. The preposition -_along_ is used about many local relations (in, at, on, into, on -board). From such combinations as _laugh along_ (l. at) and _he speak -along this fella_ the transition is easy to cases in which _along_ -serves to indicate the indirect object: _he give’m this fella Eve along -Adam_, and also a kind of direct object, as in _fight alonga him_, _you -gammon along me_ (deceive, lie to me), and with the form _belong_: _he -puss-puss belong this fellow_ (_puss-puss_ orig. a cat, then as a verb -to caress, make love to). - -There is no distinction of gender: _that woman he brother belong me_ -= ‘she is my sister’; _he_ (before the verb) and _him_ (in all other -positions) serve both for he, she and it. There is a curious use of -_’m_, _um_ or _em_, in our texts often written _him_, after a verb as -a ‘vocal sign of warning that an object of the verb is to follow,’ no -matter what that object is. - -Churchill says that “in the adjective comparison is unknown; the -islanders do not know how to think comparatively--at least, they lack -the form of words by which comparison may be indicated; _this big_, -_that small_ is the nearest they can come to the expression of the -idea that one thing is greater than another.” But Landtman recognizes -_more big_ and also _more better_: ‘no good make him that fashion, -more better make him all same.’ The same double comparative I find in -another place, used as a kind of verb meaning ‘ought to, had better’: -_more better you come out_. _Too_ simply means ‘much’: _he savvy too -much_ ‘he knows much’ (praise, no blame), _he too much talk_. A synonym -is _plenty too much_. Schuchardt gives the explanation of this trait: -“The white man was the teacher of the black man, who imitated his -manner of speaking. But the former would constantly use the strongest -expressions and exaggerate in a manner that he would only occasionally -resort to in speaking to his own countrymen. He did not say, ‘You are -very lazy,’ but ‘You are too lazy,’ and this will account for the fact -that ‘very’ is called _too much_ in Beach-la-mar as well as _tumussi_ -in the Negro-English of Surinam” (_Spr. der Saramakkaneger_, p. iv). - -Verbs have no tense-forms; when required, a future may be indicated -by means of _by and by_: _brother belong-a-me by and by he dead_ (my -br. is dying), _bymby all men laugh along that boy_; _he small now, -bymbye he big_. It may be qualified by additions like _bymby one -time_, _bymby little bit_, _bymby big bit_, and may be used also of -the ‘postpreterit’ (of futurity relative to a past time): _by and by -boy belong island he speak_. Another way of expressing the future is -seen in _that woman he close up born (!) him piccaninny_ ‘that woman -will shortly give birth to a child.’ The usual sign of the perfect is -_been_, the only idiomatic form of the verb to be: _you been take me -along three year_; _I been look round before_. But _finish_ may also be -used: _me look him finish_ (I have seen him), _he kaikai all finish_ -(he has eaten it all up). - -Where we should expect forms of the verb ‘to be,’ there is either no -verb or else _stop_ is used: _no water stop_ (there is no water), _rain -he stop_ (it rains), _two white men stop Matupi_ (live in), _other day -plenty money he stop_ (... I had ...). For ‘have’ they say _got_. _My -belly no got kaikai_ (I am hungry), _he got good hand_ (is skilful). - - -XII.--§ 3. Sounds. - -About the phonetic structure of Beach-la-mar I have very little -information; as a rule the words in my sources are spelt in the usual -English way. Churchill speaks in rather vague terms about difficulties -which the islanders experience in imitating the English sounds, and -especially groups of consonants: “Any English word which on experiment -proved impracticable to the islanders has undergone alteration to -bring it within the scope of their familiar range of sounds or has -been rejected for some facile synonym.” Thus, according to him, the -conjunction _if_ could not be used on account of the _f_, and that is -the reason for the constant use of _suppose_ (_s’pose_, _pose_, _posum_ -= s’pose him)--but it may be allowable to doubt this, for as a matter -of fact _f_ occurs very frequently in the language--for instance, -in the well-worn words _fellow_ and _finish_. _Suppose_ probably is -preferred to _if_ because it is fuller in form and less abstract, and -therefore easier to handle, while the islanders have many occasions to -hear it in other combinations than those in which it is an equivalent -of the conjunction. - -Landtman says that with the exception of a few sounds (_j_, _ch_, and -_th_ as in _nothing_) the Kiwai Papuans have little difficulty in -pronouncing English words. - -Schuchardt gives a little more information about pronunciation, and -instances _esterrong_ = _strong_, _esseppoon_ = _spoon_, _essaucepen_ -= _saucepan_, _pellate_ = _plate_, _coverra_ = _cover_, _millit_ -= _milk_, _bock-kiss_ = _box_ (in Churchill _bokus_, _bokkis_) as -mutilations due to the native speech habits. He also gives the -following letter from a native of the New Hebrides, communicated to him -by R. H. Codrington; it shows many sound substitutions: - - _Misi Kamesi Arelu Jou no kamu ruki mi Mi no ruki iou Jou ruku Mai - Poti i ko Mae tete Vakaromala mi raiki i tiripi Ausi parogi iou i - rukauti Mai Poti mi nomoa kaikai mi angikele nau Poti mani Mae i kivi - iou Jamu Vari koti iou kivi tamu te pako paraogi mi i penesi nomoa te - Pako._ - - _Oloraiti Ta_, MATASO. - -This means as much as: - - Mr. Comins, (How) are you? You no come look me; me no look you; you - look my boat he go Mae to-day. Vakaromala me like he sleep house - belong you, he look out my boat, me no more kaikai, me hungry now, - boat man Mae he give you yam very good, you give some tobacco belong - (here = to) me, he finish, no more tobacco. - - All right Ta, MATASO. - -There are evidently many degrees of approximation to the true English -sounds. - -This letter also shows the characteristic tendency to add a vowel, -generally a short _i_, to words ending in consonants. This is old, -for I find in Defoe’s _Farther Adventures of Robinson Crusoe_ (1719, -p. 211): “All those natives, as also those of Africa, when they learn -English, they always add two E’s at the end of the words where we use -one, and make the accent upon them, as _makee_, _takee_ and the like.” -(Note the un-phonetic expressions!) Landtman, besides this addition, -as in _belongey_, also mentions a more enigmatic one of _lo_ to words -ending in vowels, as _clylo_ for ‘cry’ (cf. below on Pidgin). - - -XII.--§ 4. Pidgin. - -I now turn to Pidgin-English. As is well known, this is the name -of the jargon which is very extensively used in China, and to some -extent also in Japan and California, as a means of communication -between English-speaking people and the yellow population. The name -is derived from the Chinese distortion of the Engl. word _business_. -Unfortunately, the sources available for Pidgin-English as actually -spoken in the East nowadays are neither so full nor so exact as those -for Beach-la-mar, and the following sketch, therefore, is not quite -satisfactory.[50] - -Pidgin-English must have developed pretty soon after the first -beginning of commercial relations between the English and Chinese. In -_Engl. Studien_, 44. 298, Prick van Wely has printed some passages of -C. F. Noble’s _Voyage to the East Indies in 1747 and 1748_, in which -the Chinese are represented as talking to the writer in a “broken -and mixed dialect of English and Portuguese,” the specimens given -corresponding pretty closely to the Pidgin of our own days. Thus, _he -no cari Chinaman’s Joss, hap oter Joss_, which is rendered, ‘that man -does not worship our god, but has another god’; the Chinese are said -to be unable to pronounce _r_ and to use the word _chin-chin_ for -compliments and _pickenini_ for ‘small.’ - -The latter word seems now extinct in Pidgin proper, though we have -met it in Beach-la-mar, but _Joss_ is still very frequent in Pidgin: -it is from Portuguese _Deus_, _Deos_ (or Span. _Dios_): _Joss-house_ -is a temple or church, _Joss-pidgin_ religion, _Joss-pidgin man_ a -clergyman, _topside Joss-pidgin man_ a bishop. _Chin-chin_, according -to the same source, is from Chinese _ts’ing-ts’ing_, Pekingese -_ch’ing-ch’ing_, a term of salutation answering to ‘thank you, -adieu,’ but the English have extended its sphere of application very -considerably, using it as a noun meaning ‘salutation, compliment,’ and -as a verb meaning “to worship (by bowing and striking the chin), to -reverence, adore, implore, to deprecate anger, to wish one something, -invite, ask” (Leland). The explanation given here within parentheses -shows how the Chinese word has been interpreted by popular etymology, -and no doubt it owes its extensive use partly to its sound, which has -taken the popular fancy. _Chin-chin joss_ means religious worship of -any kind. - -Simpson says: “Many of the words in use are of unknown origin. In a -number of cases the English suppose them to be Chinese, while the -Chinese, on the other hand, take them to be English.” Some of these, -however, admit now of explanation, and not a few of them point to -India, where the English have learnt them and brought them further -East. Thus _chit_, _chitty_, ‘a letter, an account,’ is Hindustani -_chiṭṭhī_; _godown_ ‘warehouse’ is an English popular interpretation -of Malay _gadong_, from Tamil _giḍangi_. _Chowchow_ seems to be real -Chinese and to mean ‘mixed preserves,’ but in Pidgin it has acquired -the wider signification of ‘food, meal, to eat,’ besides having -various other applications: a chowchow cargo is an assorted cargo, a -‘general shop’ is a chowchow shop. _Cumshaw_ ‘a present’ is Chinese. -But _tiffin_, which is used all over the East for ‘lunch,’ is really -an English word, properly _tiffing_, from the slang verb _to tiff_, to -drink, esp. to drink out of meal-times. In India it was applied to the -meal, and then reintroduced into England and believed to be a native -Indian word. - - -XII.--§ 5. Grammar, etc. - -Among points not found in Beach-la-mar I shall mention the extensive -use of _piecee_, which in accordance with Chinese grammar is required -between a numeral and the noun indicating what is counted; thus in -a Chinaman’s description of a three-masted screw steamer with two -funnels: “Thlee piecee bamboo, two piecee puff-puff, walk-along inside, -no can see” (walk-along = the engine). _Side_ means any locality: _he -belongey China-side now_ (he is in China), _topside_ above, or high, -_bottom-side_ below, _farside_ beyond, _this-side_ here, _allo-side_ -around. In a similar way _time_ (pronounced _tim_ or _teem_) is used in -_that-tim_ then, when, _what-tim_ when? _one-tim_ once, only, _two-tim_ -twice, again, _nother-tim_ again. - -In one respect the Chinese sound system is accountable for a deviation -from Beach-la-mar, namely in the substitution of _l_ for _r_: _loom_, -_all light_ for ‘room, all right,’ etc., while the islanders often -made the inverse change. But the tendency to add a vowel after a final -consonant is the same: _makee_, _too muchee_, etc. The enigmatic -termination _lo_, which Landtman found in some words in New Guinea, is -also added to some words ending in vowel sounds in Pidgin, according to -Leland, who instances _die-lo_, die; in his texts I find the additional -examples _buy-lo_, _say-lo_, _pay-lo_, _hear-lo_, besides _wailo_, or -_wylo_, which is probably from _away_; it means ‘go away, away with -you! go, depart, gone.’ Can it be the Chinese sign of the past tense -_la_, _lao_, generalized? - -Among usual expressions must be mentioned _number one_ (_numpa one_) -‘first-class, excellent,’ _catchee_ ‘get, possess, hold, bring,’ etc., -_ploper_ (_plopa_) ‘proper, good, nice, correct’: _you belong ploper?_ -‘are you well?’ - -Another word which was not in use among the South Sea islanders, namely -_have_, in the form _hab_ or _hap_ is often used in Pidgin, even to -form the perfect. _Belong_ (_belongy_) is nearly as frequent as in -Beach-la-mar, but is used in a different way: ‘My belongy Consoo boy,’ -‘I am the Consul’s servant.’ ‘You belong clever inside,’ ‘you are -intelligent.’ The usual way of asking the price of something is ‘how -much belong?’ - - -XII.--§ 6. General Theory. - -Lingos of the same type as Beach-la-mar and Pidgin-English are found -in other parts of the world where whites and natives meet and have -to find some medium of communication. Thus a Danish doctor living in -Belgian Congo sends me a few specimens of the ‘Pidgin’ spoken there: to -indicate that his master has received many letters from home, the ‘boy’ -will say, “Massa catch plenty mammy-book” (_mammy_ meaning ‘woman, -wife’). _Breeze_ stands for air in general; if the boy wants to say -that he has pumped up the bicycle tyres, he will say, “Plenty breeze -live for inside,” _live_, being here the general term for ‘to be’ -(Beach-l. _stop_); ‘is your master in?’ becomes ‘Massa live?’ and the -answer is ‘he no live’ or ‘he live for hup’ (i.e. he is upstairs). If -a man has a stomach-ache he will say ‘he hurt me for belly plenty too -much’--_too much_ is thus used exactly as in Beach-la-mar and Chinese -Pidgin. The similarity of all these jargons, in spite of unavoidable -smaller differences, is in fact very striking indeed. - -It may be time now to draw the moral of all this. And first I want -to point out that these languages are not ‘mixed languages’ in the -proper sense of that term. Churchill is not right when he says that -Beach-la-mar “gathered material from every source, it fused them -all.” As a matter of fact, it is English, and nothing but English, -with very few admixtures, and all of these are such words as had -previously been adopted into the English speech of those classes of the -population, sailors, etc., with whom the natives came into contact: -they were therefore justified in their belief that these words formed -part of the English tongue and that what they learned themselves was -real English. The natives really adhere to Windisch’s rule about the -adoption of loan-words (above, XI § 10). If there are more Chinese -words in Pidgin than there are Polynesian ones in Beach-la-mar, this is -a natural consequence of the fact that the Chinese civilization ranked -incomparably much higher than the Polynesian, and that therefore the -English living in China would adopt these words into their own speech. -Still, their number is not very large. And we have seen that there are -some words which the Easterners must naturally suppose to be English, -while the English think that they belong to the vernacular, and in -using them each party is thus under the delusion that he is rendering -a service to the other. - -This leads me to my second point: those deviations from correct -English, those corruptions of pronunciation and those simplifications -of grammar, which have formed the object of this short sketch, are due -just as much to the English as to the Easterners, and in many points -they began with the former rather than with the latter (cf. Schuchardt, -_Auf anlass des Volapüks_, 1888, 8; KS 4. 35, SlD 36; ESt 15. 292). -From Schuchardt I take the following quotation: “The usual question on -reaching the portico of an Indian bungalow is, _Can missus see?_--it -being a popular superstition amongst the Europeans that to enable -a native to understand English he must be addressed as if he were -deaf, and in the most infantile language.” This tendency to meet the -‘inferior races’ half-way in order to facilitate matters for them is -by Churchill called “the one supreme axiom of international philology: -the proper way to make a foreigner understand what you would say is to -use broken English. He speaks it himself, therefore give him what he -uses.” We recognize here the same mistaken notion that we have seen -above in the language of the nursery, where mothers and others will -talk a curious sort of mangled English which is believed to represent -real babytalk, though it has many traits which are purely conventional. -In both cases these more or less artificial perversions are thought -to be an aid to those who have not yet mastered the intricacies of -the language in question, though the ultimate result is at best a -retardation of the perfect acquisition of correct speech. - -My view, then, is that Beach-la-mar as well as Pidgin is English, only -English learnt imperfectly, in consequence partly of the difficulties -always inherent in learning a totally different language, partly of the -obstacles put in the way of learning by the linguistic behaviour of the -English-speaking people themselves. The analogy of its imperfections -with those of a baby’s speech in the first period is striking, and -includes errors of pronunciation, extreme simplification of grammar, -scantiness of vocabulary, even to such peculiarities as that the word -_too_ is apprehended in the sense of ‘very much,’ and such phrases as -_you better go_, etc. - - -XII.--§ 7. Mauritius Creole. - -The view here advanced on the character of these ‘Pidgin’ languages -is corroborated when we see that other languages under similar -circumstances have been treated in exactly the same way as English. -With regard to French in the island of Mauritius, formerly Ile de -France, we are fortunate in possessing an excellent treatment of the -subject by M. C. Baissac (_Étude sur le Patois Créole Mauricien_, -Nancy, 1880; cf. the same writer’s _Le Folk-lore de l’Ile-Maurice_, -Paris, 1888, Les littératures populaires, tome xxvii). The island was -uninhabited when the French occupied it in 1715; a great many slaves -were imported from Madagascar, and as a means of intercourse between -them and their French masters a French Creole language sprang up, which -has survived the English conquest (1810) and the subsequent wholesale -introduction of coolies from India and elsewhere. The paramount element -in the vocabulary is French; one may read many pages in Baissac’s texts -without coming across any foreign words, apart from the names of some -indigenous animals and plants. In the phonetic structure there are a -few all-pervading traits: the front-round vowels are replaced by the -corresponding unrounded vowels or in a few cases by [u], and instead -of [ʃ, ʒ] we find [s, z]; thus _éré_ heureux, _éne plime_ une plume, -_sakéne_ chacun(e), _zize_ juge, _zunu_ genou, _suval_ cheval: I -replace Baissac’s notation, which is modelled on the French spelling, -by a more phonetic one according to his own indications; but I keep his -final _e muet_. - -The grammar of this language is as simple as possible. Substantives -have the same form for the two numbers: _dé suval_ deux chevaux. There -is no definite article. The adjective is invariable, thus also _sa_ -for ce, cet, cette, ces, ceci, cela, celui, celle, ceux, celles. _Mo_ -before a verb is ‘I,’ before a substantive it is possessive: _mo koné_ -I know, _mo lakaze_ my house; in the same way _to_ is you and your, but -in the third person a distinction is made, for _li_ is he or she, but -his or her is _so_, and here we have even a plural, _zaute_ from ‘les -autres,’ which form is also used as a plural of the second person: _mo -va alle av zaut_, I shall go with you. - -The genitive is expressed by word-order without any preposition: -_lakase so papa_ his father’s house; also with _so_ before the -nominative: _so piti ppa Azor_ old Azor’s child. - -The form in which the French words have been taken over presents some -curious features, and in some cases illustrates the difficulty the -blacks felt in separating the words which they heard in the French -utterance as one continuous stream of sounds. There is evidently a -disinclination to begin a word with a vowel, and sometimes an initial -vowel is left out, as _bitation_ habitation, _tranzé_ étranger, but in -other cases _z_ is taken from the French plural article: _zozo_ oiseau, -_zistoire_, _zenfan_, _zimaze_ image, _zalfan_ éléphant, _zanimo_ -animal, or _n_ from the French indefinite article: _name_ ghost, _nabi_ -(or _zabi_) habit. In many cases the whole French article is taken as -an integral part of the word, as _lérat_ rat, _léroi_, _licien_ chien, -_latabe_ table, _lére_ heure (often as a conjunction ‘when’); thus -also with the plural article _lizié_ from _les yeux_, but without the -plural signification: _éne lizié_ an eye. Similarly _éne lazoie_ a -goose. Words that are often used in French with the so-called partitive -article keep this; thus _disel_ salt, _divin_ wine, _duri_ rice, _éne -dipin_ a loaf; here also we meet with one word from the French plural: -_éne dizéf_ an egg, from _des œufs_. The French mass-word with the -partitive article _du monde_ has become _dimunde_ or _dumune_, and -as it means ‘people’ and no distinction is made between plural and -singular, it is used also for ‘person’: _éne vié dimunde_ an old man. - -Verbs have only one form, generally from the French infinitive or past -participle, which in most cases would fall together (_manzé_ = manger, -mangé; _kuri_ = courir, couru); this serves for all persons in both -numbers and all moods. But tenses are indicated by means of auxiliary -words: _va_ for the future, _té_ (from _été_) for the ordinary past, -and _fine_ for the perfect: _mo manzé_ I eat, _mo va manzé_ I shall -eat, _mo té manzé_ I ate, _mo fine manzé_ I have eaten, _mo fine -fini_ I have finished. Further, there is a curious use of _aprè_ to -express what in English are called the progressive or expanded tenses: -_mo aprè manzé_ I am eating, _mo té aprè manzé_ I was eating, and of -_pour_ to express the immediate future: _mo pour manzé_ I am going -to eat, and finally an immediate past may be expressed by _fék_: _mo -fék manzé_ I have just been eating (je ne fais que de manger). As -these may be combined in various ways (_mo va fine manzé_ I shall have -eaten, even _mo té va fék manzé_ I should have eaten a moment ago, -etc.), the language has really succeeded in building up a very fine and -rich verbal system with the simplest possible means and with perfect -regularity. - -The French separate negatives have been combined into one word each: -_napa_ not (there is not), _narien_ nothing, and similarly _nék_ only. - -In many cases the same form is used for a substantive or adjective and -for a verb: _mo soif_, _mo faim_ I am thirsty and hungry; _li content -so madame_ he is fond of his wife. - -_Côte_ (or _à côte_) is a preposition ‘by the side of, near,’ but also -means ‘where’: _la case àcote li resté_ ‘the house in which he lives’; -cf. Pidgin _side_. - -In all this, as will easily be seen, there is very little French -grammar; this will be especially evident when we compare the French -verbal system with its many intricacies: difference according to -person, number, tense and mood with their endings, changes of -root-vowels and stress-place, etc., with the unchanged verbal root -and the invariable auxiliary syllables of the Creole. But there is -really as little in the Creole dialect of Malagasy grammar, as I have -ascertained by looking through G. W. Parker’s _Grammar_ (London, 1883): -both nations in forming this means of communication have, as it were, -stripped themselves of all their previous grammatical habits and have -spoken as if their minds were just as innocent of grammar as those of -very small babies, whether French or Malagasy. Thus, and thus only, can -it be explained that the grammar of this variety of French is for all -practical purposes identical with the grammar of those two varieties of -English which we have previously examined in this chapter. - -No one can read Baissac’s collection of folk-tales from Mauritius -without being often struck with the felicity and even force of this -language, in spite of its inevitable _naïveté_ and of the childlike -simplicity of its constructions. If it were left to itself it might -develop into a really fine idiom without abandoning any of its -characteristic traits. But as it is, it seems to be constantly changing -through the influence of real French, which is more and more taught -to and imitated by the islanders, and the day may come when most of -the features described in this rapid sketch will have given place to -something which is less original, but will be more readily understood -by Parisian globe-trotters who may happen to visit the distant island. - - -XII.--§ 8. Chinook Jargon. - -The view here advanced may be further put to the test if we examine -a totally different language developed in another part of the world, -viz. in Oregon. I give its history in an abridged form from Hale.[51] -When the first British and American trading ships appeared on the -north-west coast of America, towards the end of the eighteenth century, -they found a great number of distinct languages, the Nootka, Nisqually, -Chinook, Chihailish and others, all of them harsh in pronunciation, -complex in structure, and each spoken over a very limited space. The -traders learnt a few Nootka words and the Indians a few English words. -Afterwards the traders began to frequent the Columbia River, and -naturally attempted to communicate with the natives there by means of -the words which they had found intelligible at Nootka. The Chinooks -soon acquired these words, both Nootka and English. When later the -white traders made permanent establishments in Oregon, a real language -was required; and it was formed by drawing upon the Chinook for such -words as were requisite, numerals, pronouns, and some adverbs and other -words. Thus enriched, ‘the Jargon,’ as it now began to be styled, -became of great service as a means of general intercourse. Now, French -Canadians in the service of the fur companies were brought more closely -into contact with the Indians, hunted with them, and lived with them -on terms of familiarity. The consequence was that several French words -were added to the slender stock of the Jargon, including the names of -various articles of food and clothing, implements, several names of -the parts of the body, and the verbs to run, sing and dance, also one -conjunction, _puis_, reduced to _pi_. - -“The origin of some of the words is rather whimsical. The Americans, -British and French are distinguished by the terms _Boston_, _Kinchotsh_ -(King George), and _pasaiuks_, which is presumed to be the word -_Français_ (as neither _f_, _r_ nor the nasal _n_ can be pronounced -by the Indians) with the Chinook plural termination _uks_ added.... -‘Foolish’ is expressed by _pelton_ or _pilton_, derived from the name -of a deranged person, one Archibald Pelton, whom the Indians saw at -Astoria; his strange appearance and actions made such an impression -upon them, that thenceforward anyone behaving in an absurd or -irrational manner” was termed _pelton_. - -The phonetic structure is very simple, and contains no sound or -combination that is not easy to Englishmen and Frenchmen as well as to -Indians of at least a dozen tribes. The numerous harsh Indian velars -either disappear entirely or are softened to _h_ and _k_. On the other -hand, the _d_, _f_, _r_, _v_, _z_ of the English and French become in -the mouth of a Chinook _t_, _p_, _l_, _w_, _s_. Examples: - - Chinook: _thliakso_ _yakso_ hair - _etsghot_ _itshut_ black bear - _tkalaitanam_ _kalaitan_ arrow, shot, bullet - _ntshaika_ _nesaika_ we - _mshaika_ _mesaika_ we - _thlaitshka_ _klaska_ (_tlaska_) they - _tkhlon_ _klon_ (_tlun_) three - - English: _handkerchief_ _hakatshum_ (_kenkeshim_) handkerchief - _cry_ _klai_, _kalai_ (_kai_) cry, mourn - _fire_ _paia_ fire, cook, ripe - _dry_ _tlai_, _delai_ dry - - French: _courir_ _kuli_ run - _la bouche_ _labus_ (_labush_) mouth - _le mouton_ _lemuto_ sheep - -The forms in parentheses are those of the French glossary (1853). - -It will be noticed that many of the French words have the definite -article affixed (a trait noticed in many words in the French Creole -dialect of Mauritius). More than half of the words in Hale’s -glossary beginning with _l_ have this origin, thus _labutai_ bottle, -_lakloa_ cross, _lamie_ an old woman (la vieille), _lapushet_ fork -(la fourchette), _latlá_ noise (faire du train), _lidú_ finger, -_lejaub_ (or _diaub_, _yaub_) devil (le diable), _léma_ hand, _liplét_ -missionary (le prêtre), _litá_ tooth. The plural article is found in -_lisáp_ egg (les œufs)--the same word in which Mauritius French has -also adopted the plural form. - -Some of the meanings of English words are rather curious; thus, _kol_ -besides ‘cold’ means ‘winter,’ and as the years, as with the old -Scandinavians, are reckoned by winters, also ‘year.’ _Sun_ (_son_) -besides ‘sun’ also means ‘day.’ _Spos_ (often pronounced _pos_), as in -Beach-la-mar, is a common conjunction, ‘if, when.’ - -The grammar is extremely simple. Nouns are invariable; the plural -generally is not distinguished from the singular; sometimes _haiu_ -(_ayo_) ‘much, many’ is added by way of emphasis. The genitive is shown -by position only: _kahta nem maika papa?_ (lit., what name thou father) -what is the name of your father? The adjective precedes the noun, and -comparison is indicated by periphrasis. ‘I am stronger than thou’ would -be _weke maika skukum kahkwa naika_, lit. ‘not thou strong as I.’ The -superlative is indicated by the adverb _haiás_ ‘great, very’: _haiás -oliman okuk kanim_, that canoe is the oldest, lit., very old that -canoe, or (according to Gibbs) by _elip_ ‘first, before’: _elip klosh_ -‘best.’ - -The numerals and pronouns are from the Chinook, but the latter, at any -rate, are very much simplified. Thus the pronoun for ‘we’ is _nesaika_, -from Chinook _ntshaika_, which is the exclusive form, meaning ‘we -here,’ not including the person or persons addressed. - -Like the nouns, the verbs have only one form, the tense being left -to be inferred from the context, or, if strictly necessary, being -indicated by an adverb. The future, in the sense of ‘about to, ready -to,’ may be expressed by _tike_, which means properly ‘wish,’ as _naika -papa tike mimalus_ (_mimelust_) my father is about to die. The verb ‘to -be’ is not expressed: _maika pelton_, thou art foolish. - -There is a much-used verb _mámuk_, which means ‘make, do, work’ and -forms causatives, as _mamuk chako_ ‘make to come, bring,’ _mamuk -mimalus_ ‘kill.’ With a noun: _mamuk lalam_ (Fr. la rame) ‘make oar,’ -i.e. ‘to row,’ _mamuk pepe_ (make paper) ‘write,’ _mamuk po_ (make -blow) ‘fire a gun.’ - -There is only one true preposition, _kopa_, which is used in various -senses--to, for, at, in, among, about, etc.; but even this may -generally be omitted and the sentence remain intelligible. The two -conjunctions _spos_ and _pi_ have already been mentioned. - - -XII.--§ 9. Chinook continued. - -In this way something is formed that may be used as a language in -spite of the scantiness of its vocabulary. But a good deal has to -be expressed by the tone of the voice, the look and the gesture of -the speaker. “The Indians in general,” says Hale (p. 18), “are very -sparing of their gesticulations. No languages, probably, require less -assistance from this source than theirs.... We frequently had occasion -to observe the sudden change produced when a party of the natives, who -had been conversing in their own tongue, were joined by a foreigner, -with whom it was necessary to speak in the Jargon. The countenances, -which had before been grave, stolid and inexpressive, were instantly -lighted up with animation; the low, monotonous tone became lively and -modulated; every feature was active; the head, the arms and the whole -body were in motion, and every look and gesture became instinct with -meaning.” - -In British Columbia and in parts of Alaska this language is the -prevailing medium of intercourse between the whites and the natives, -and there Hale thinks that it is likely to live “for hundreds, and -perhaps thousands, of years to come.” The language has already the -beginning of a literature: songs, mostly composed by women, who sing -them to plaintive native tunes. Hale gives some lyrics and a sermon -preached by Mr. Eells, who has been accustomed for many years to preach -to the Indians in the Jargon and who says that he sometimes even thinks -in this idiom. - -Hale counted the words in this sermon, and found that to express -the whole of its “historic and descriptive details, its arguments -and its appeals,” only 97 different words were required, and not a -single grammatical inflexion. Of these words, 65 were from Amerindian -languages (46 Chinook, 17 Nootka, 2 Salish), 23 English and 7 French. - -It is very instructive to go through the texts given by Hale and to -compare them with the real Chinook text analysed in Boas’s _Handbook of -American Indian Languages_ (Washington, 1911, p. 666 ff.): the contrast -could not be stronger between simplicity carried to the extreme point, -on the one hand, and an infinite complexity and intricacy on the other. -But though it must be admitted that astonishingly much can be expressed -in the Jargon by its very simple and few means, a European mind, while -bewildered in the entangled jumble of the Chinook language, cannot -help missing a great many _nuances_ in the Jargon, where thoughts are -reduced to their simplest formula and where everything is left out that -is not strictly necessary to the least exacting minds. - - -XII.--§ 10. Makeshift Languages. - -To sum up, this Oregon trade language is to be classed together with -Beach-la-mar and Pidgin-English, not perhaps as ‘bastard’ or ‘mongrel’ -languages--such expressions taken from biology always convey the wrong -impression that a language is an ‘organism’ and had therefore better -be avoided--but rather as makeshift languages or minimum languages, -means of expression which do not serve all the purposes of ordinary -languages, but may be used as substitutes where fuller and better ones -are not available. - -The analogy between this Jargon and the makeshift languages of the -East is closer than might perhaps appear at first blush, only we must -make it clear to ourselves that English is in the two cases placed in -exactly the inverse position. Pidgin and Beach-la-mar are essentially -English learnt imperfectly by the Easterners, the Oregon Jargon is -essentially Chinook learnt imperfectly by the English. Just as in -the East the English not only suffered but also abetted the yellows -in their corruption of the English language, so also the Amerindians -met the English half-way through simplifying their own speech. If -in Polynesia and China the makeshift language came to contain some -Polynesian and Chinese words, they were those which the English -themselves had borrowed into their own language and which the yellows -therefore must think formed a legitimate part of the language they -wanted to speak; and in the same way the American Jargon contains such -words from the European languages as had been previously adopted by -the reds. If the Jargon embraces so many French terms for the various -parts of the body, one concomitant reason probably is that these names -in the original Chinook language presented special difficulties through -being specialized and determined by possessive affixes (my foot, for -instance, is _lekxeps_, thy foot _tāmēps_, its foot _lelaps_, our (dual -inclusive) feet _tetxaps_, your (dual) feet _temtaps_; I simplify the -notation in Boas’s _Handbook_, p. 586), so that it was incomparably -easier to take the French _lepi_ and use it unchanged in all cases, -no matter what the number, and no matter who the possessor was. The -natives, who had learnt such words from the French, evidently used -them to other whites under the impression that thereby they could -make themselves more readily understood, and the British and American -traders probably imagined them to be real Chinook; anyhow, their use -meant a substantial economy of mental exertion. - -The chief point I want to make, however, is with regard to grammar. In -all these languages, both in the makeshift English and French of the -East and in the makeshift Amerindian of the North-West, the grammatical -structure has been simplified very much beyond what we find in any -of the languages involved in their making, and simplified to such an -extent that it may be expressed in very few words, and those nearly the -same in all these languages, the chief rule being common to them all, -that substantives, adjectives and verbs remain always unchanged. The -vocabularies are as the poles asunder--in the East English and French, -in America Chinook, etc.--but the morphology of all these languages -is practically identical, because in all of them it has reached the -vanishing-point. This shows conclusively that the reason of this -simplicity is not the Chinese substratum or the influence of Chinese -grammar, as is so often believed. Pidgin-English cannot be described, -as is often done, as English with Chinese pronunciation and Chinese -grammar, because in that case we should expect Beach-la-mar to be -quite different from it, as the substratum there would be Melanesian, -which in many ways differs from Chinese, and further we should expect -the Mauritius Creole to be French with Malagasy pronunciation and -Malagasy grammar, and on the other hand the Oregon trade language to -be Chinook with English pronunciation and English grammar--but in none -of these cases would this description tally with the obvious facts. -We might just as well say that the speech of a two-year-old child in -England is English with Chinese grammar, and that of the two-year-old -French child is French modelled on Chinese grammar: the truth on the -contrary, is that in all these seemingly so different cases the same -mental factor is at work, namely, imperfect mastery of a language, -which in its initial stage, in the child with its first language and -in the grown-up with a second language learnt by imperfect methods, -leads to a superficial knowledge of the most indispensable words, with -total disregard of grammar. Often, here and there, this is combined -with a wish to express more than is possible with the means at hand, -and thus generates the attempts to express the inexpressible by means -of those more or less ingenious and more or less comical devices, with -paraphrases and figurative or circuitous designations, which we have -seen first in the chapters on children’s language and now again in -Beach-la-mar and its congeners. - -Exactly the same characteristics are found again in the _lingua -geral Brazilica_, which in large parts of Brazil serves as the -means of communication between the whites and Indians or negroes -and also between Indians of different tribes. It “possesses neither -declension nor conjugation” and “places words after one another without -grammatical flexion, with disregard of _nuances_ in sentence structure, -but in energetic brevity,” it is “easy of pronunciation,” with many -vowels and no hard consonant groups--in all these respects it differs -considerably from the original Tupí, from which it has been evolved by -the Europeans.[52] - -Finally, I would point the contrast between these makeshift languages -and slang: the former are an outcome of linguistic poverty; they -are born of the necessity and the desire to make oneself understood -where the ordinary idiom of the individual is of no use, while slang -expressions are due to a linguistic exuberance: the individual creating -them knows perfectly well the ordinary words for the idea he wants to -express, but in youthful playfulness he is not content with what is -everybody’s property, and thus consciously steps outside the routine -of everyday language to produce something that is calculated to excite -merriment or even admiration on the part of his hearers. The results -in both cases may sometimes show related features, for some of the -figurative expressions of Beach-la-mar recall certain slang words by -their bold metaphors, but the motive force in the two kinds is totally -different, and where a comic effect is produced, in one case it is -intentional and in the other unintentional. - - -XII.--§ 11. Romanic Languages. - -When Schuchardt began his studies of the various Creole languages -formed in many parts of the world where Europeans speaking various -Romanic and other languages had come into contact with negroes, -Polynesians and other races, it was with the avowed intention -of throwing light on the origin of the Romanic languages from a -contact between Latin and the languages previously spoken in the -countries colonized by the Romans. We may now raise the question -whether Beach-la-mar--to take that as a typical example of the kind -of languages dealt with in this chapter--is likely to develop into -a language which to the English of Great Britain will stand in the -same relation as French or Portuguese to Latin. The answer cannot -be doubtful if we adhere tenaciously to the points of view already -advanced. Development into a separate language would be imaginable -only on condition of a complete, or a nearly complete, isolation from -the language of England (and America)--and how should that be effected -nowadays, with our present means of transport and communication? If -such isolation were indeed possible, it would also result in the -breaking off of communication between the various islands in which -Beach-la-mar is now spoken, and that would probably entail the speedy -extinction of the language itself in favour of the Polynesian language -of each separate island. On the contrary, what will probably happen is -a development in the opposite direction, by which the English of the -islanders will go on constantly improving so as to approach correct -usage more and more in every respect: better pronunciation and syntax, -more flexional forms and a less scanty vocabulary--in short, the same -development that has already to a large extent taken place in the -English of the coloured population in the United States. But this -means a gradual extinction of Beach-la-mar as a separate idiom through -its complete absorption in ordinary English (cf. above, p. 228, on -conditions at Mauritius). - -Do these ‘makeshift languages,’ then, throw any light on the -development of the Romanic languages? They may be compared to the very -first initial stage of the Latin language as spoken by the barbarians, -many of whom may be supposed to have mutilated Latin in very much the -same way as the Pacific islanders do English. But by and by they learnt -Latin much better, and if now the Romanic languages have simplified the -grammatical structure of Latin, this simplification is not to be placed -on the same footing as the formlessness of Beach-la-mar, for that is -complete and has been achieved at one blow: the islanders have never -(i.e. have not yet) learnt the English form-system. But the inhabitants -of France, Spain, etc., did learn the Latin form system as well as the -syntactic use of the forms. This is seen by the fact that when French -and the other languages began to be written down, there remained in -them a large quantity of forms and syntactic applications that agree -with Latin but have since then become extinct: in its oldest written -form, therefore, French is very far from the amorphous condition of -Beach-la-mar: in its nouns it had many survivals of the Latin case -system (gen. pl. corresponding to _-orum_; an oblique case different -from the nominative and formed in various ways according to the rules -of Latin declensions), in the verbs we find an intricate system of -tenses, moods and persons, based on the Latin flexions. It is true that -these had been already to some degree simplified, but this must have -happened in the same gradual way as the further simplification that -goes on before our very eyes in the written documents of the following -centuries: the distance from the first to the tenth century must have -been bridged over in very much the same way as the distance between -the tenth and the twentieth century. No cataclysm such as that through -which English has become Beach-la-mar need on any account be invoked to -explain the perfectly natural change from Latin to Old French and from -Old French to Modern French. - -FOOTNOTES: - -[48] The etymology of this name is rather curious: Portuguese _bicho de -mar_, from _bicho_ ‘worm,’ the name of the sea slug or trepang, which -is eaten as a luxury by the Chinese, was in French modified into _bêche -de mer_, ‘sea-spade’; this by a second popular etymology was made into -English _beach-la-mar_ as if a compound of _beach_. - -My sources are H. Schuchardt, KS v. (Wiener Academie, 1883); id. in -ESt xiii. 158 ff., 1889; W. Churchill, _Beach-la-Mar, the Jargon -or Trade Speech of the Western Pacific_ (Carnegie Institution of -Washington, 1911); Jack London, _The Cruise of the Snark_ (Mills & -Boon, London, 1911?), G. Landtman in _Neuphilologische Mitteilungen_ -(Helsingfors, 1918, p. 62 ff. Landtman calls it “the Pidgin-English -of British New Guinea,” where he learnt it, though it really differs -from Pidgin-English proper; see below); “The Jargon English of Torres -Straits” in _Reports of the Cambridge Anthropological Expedition to -Torres Straits_, vol. iii. p. 251 ff., Cambridge, 1907. - -[49] Similarly the missionary G. Brown thought that _tobi_ was a -native word of the Duke of York Islands for ‘wash,’ till one day he -accidentally discovered that it was their pronunciation of English -_soap_. - -[50] There are many specimens in Charles G. Leland, _Pidgin-English -Sing-Song, or Songs and Stories in the China-English Dialect, with -a Vocabulary_ (5th ed., London, 1900), but they make the impression -of being artificially made-up to amuse the readers, and contain a -much larger proportion of Chinese words than the rest of my sources -would warrant. Besides various articles in newspapers I have used W. -Simpson, “China’s Future Place in Philology” (_Macmillan’s Magazine_, -November 1873) and Dr. Legge’s article “Pigeon English” in _Chambers’s -Encyclopædia_, 1901 (s.v. China). The chapters devoted to Pidgin in -Karl Lentzner’s _Dictionary of the Slang-English of Australia and of -some Mixed Languages_ (Halle, 1892) give little else but wholesale -reprints of passages from some of the sources mentioned above. - -[51] See _An International Idiom. A Manual of the Oregon Trade -Language, or Chinook Jargon_, by Horatio Hale (London, 1890). Besides -this I have used a _Vocabulary of the Jargon or Trade Language of -Oregon_ [by Lionnet] published by the Smithsonian Institution (1853), -and George Gibbs, _A Dictionary of the Chinook Jargon_ (Smithsonian -Inst., 1863). Lionnet spells the words according to the French fashion, -while Gibbs and Hale spell them in the English way. I have given them -with the continental values of the vowels in accordance with the -indications in Hale’s glossary. - -[52] See Martius, _Beitr. zur Ethnogr. und Sprachenkunde Amerikas_ -(Leipzig, 1867), i. 364 ff. and ii. 23 ff. - - - - -CHAPTER XIII - -THE WOMAN - - § 1. Women’s Languages. § 2. Tabu. § 3. Competing Languages. § 4. - Sanskrit Drama. § 5. Conservatism. § 6. Phonetics and Grammar. § 7. - Choice of Words. § 8. Vocabulary. § 9. Adverbs. § 10. Periods. § 11. - General Characteristics. - - -XIII.--§ 1. Women’s Languages. - -There are tribes in which men and women are said to speak totally -different languages, or at any rate distinct dialects. It will be -worth our while to look at the classical example of this, which is -mentioned in a great many ethnographical and linguistic works, viz. -the Caribs or Caribbeans of the Small Antilles. The first to mention -their distinct sex dialects was the Dominican Breton, who, in his -_Dictionnaire Caraïbe-français_ (1664), says that the Caribbean chief -had exterminated all the natives except the women, who had retained -part of their ancient language. This is repeated in many subsequent -accounts, the fullest and, as it seems, most reliable of which is that -by Rochefort, who spent a long time among the Caribbeans in the middle -of the seventeenth century: see his _Histoire naturelle et morale des -Iles Antilles_ (2e éd., Rotterdam, 1665, p. 449 ff.). Here he says that -“the men have a great many expressions peculiar to them, which the -women understand but never pronounce themselves. On the other hand, the -women have words and phrases which the men never use, or they would -be laughed to scorn. Thus it happens that in their conversations it -often seems as if the women had another language than the men.... The -savage natives of Dominica say that the reason for this is that when -the Caribs came to occupy the islands these were inhabited by an Arawak -tribe which they exterminated completely, with the exception of the -women, whom they married in order to populate the country. Now, these -women kept their own language and taught it to their daughters.... But -though the boys understand the speech of their mothers and sisters, -they nevertheless follow their fathers and brothers and conform to -their speech from the age of five or six.... It is asserted that there -is some similarity between the speech of the continental Arawaks and -that of the Carib women. But the Carib men and women on the continent -speak the same language, as they have never corrupted their natural -speech by marriage with strange women.” - -This evidently is the account which forms the basis of everything that -has since been written on the subject. But it will be noticed that -Rochefort does not really speak of the speech of the two sexes as -totally distinct languages or dialects, as has often been maintained, -but only of certain differences within the same language. If we go -through the comparatively full and evidently careful glossary attached -to his book, in which he denotes the words peculiar to the men by the -letter H and those of the women by F, we shall see that it is only -for about one-tenth of the vocabulary that such special words have -been indicated to him, though the matter evidently interested him very -much, so that he would make all possible efforts to elicit them from -the natives. In his lists, words special to one or the other sex are -found most frequently in the names of the various degrees of kinship; -thus, ‘my father’ in the speech of the men in _youmáan_, in that of -the women _noukóuchili_, though both in addressing him say _bába_; -‘my grandfather’ is _itámoulou_ and _nárgouti_ respectively, and thus -also for maternal uncle, son (elder son, younger son), brother-in-law, -wife, mother, grandmother, daughter, cousin--all of these are different -according as a man or a woman is speaking. It is the same with the -names of some, though far from all, of the different parts of the body, -and with some more or less isolated words, as friend, enemy, joy, work, -war, house, garden, bed, poison, tree, sun, moon, sea, earth. This list -comprises nearly every notion for which Rochefort indicates separate -words, and it will be seen that there are innumerable ideas for which -men and women use the same word. Further, we see that where there are -differences these do not consist in small deviations, such as different -prefixes or suffixes added to the same root, but in totally distinct -roots. Another point is very important to my mind: judging by the -instances in which plural forms are given in the lists, the words of -the two sexes are inflected in exactly the same way; thus the grammar -is common to both, from which we may infer that we have not really to -do with two distinct languages in the proper sense of the word. - -Now, some light may probably be thrown on the problem of this women’s -language from a custom mentioned in some of the old books written by -travellers who have visited these islands. Rochefort himself (p. 497) -very briefly says that “the women do not eat till their husbands have -finished their meal,” and Lafitau (1724) says that women never eat in -the company of their husbands and never mention them by name, but must -wait upon them as their slaves; with this Labat agrees. - - -XIII.--§ 2. Tabu. - -The fact that a wife is not allowed to mention the name of her husband -makes one think that we have here simply an instance of a custom found -in various forms and in varying degrees throughout the world--what -is called verbal tabu: under certain circumstances, at certain -times, in certain places, the use of one or more definite words is -interdicted, because it is superstitiously believed to entail certain -evil consequences, such as exasperate demons and the like. In place -of the forbidden words it is therefore necessary to use some kind of -figurative paraphrase, to dig up an otherwise obsolete term, or to -disguise the real word so as to render it more innocent. - -Now as a matter of fact we find that verbal tabu was a common practice -with the old Caribs: when they were on the war-path they had a great -number of mysterious words which women were never allowed to learn and -which even the young men might not pronounce before passing certain -tests of bravery and patriotism; these war-words are described as -extraordinarily difficult (“un baragoin fort difficile,” Rochefort, -p. 450). It is easy to see that when once a tribe has acquired the -habit of using a whole set of terms under certain frequently recurring -circumstances, while others are at the same time strictly interdicted, -this may naturally lead to so many words being reserved exclusively for -one of the sexes that an observer may be tempted to speak of separate -‘languages’ for the two sexes. There is thus no occasion to believe -in the story of a wholesale extermination of all male inhabitants by -another tribe, though on the other hand it is easy to understand how -such a myth may arise as an explanation of the linguistic difference -between men and women, when it has become strong enough to attract -attention and therefore has to be accounted for. - -In some parts of the world the connexion between a separate women’s -language and tabu is indubitable. Thus among the Bantu people of -Africa. With the Zulus a wife is not allowed to mention the name of -her father-in-law and of his brothers, and if a similar word or even a -similar syllable occurs in the ordinary language, she must substitute -something else of a similar meaning. In the royal family the difficulty -of understanding the women’s language is further increased by the -woman’s being forbidden to mention the names of her husband, his father -and grandfather as well as his brothers. If one of these names means -something like “the son of the bull,” each of these words has to be -avoided, and all kinds of paraphrases have to be used. According to -Kranz the interdiction holds good not only for meaning elements of -the name, but even for certain sounds entering into them; thus, if -the name contains the sound _z_, _amanzi_ ‘water’ has to be altered -into _amandabi_. If a woman were to contravene this rule she would be -indicted for sorcery and put to death. The substitutes thus introduced -tend to be adopted by others and to constitute a real women’s language. - -With the Chiquitos in Bolivia the difference between the grammars of -the two sexes is rather curious (see V. Henry, “Sur le parler des -hommes et le parler des femmes dans la langue chiquita,” _Revue de -linguistique_, xii. 305, 1879). Some of Henry’s examples may be thus -summarized: men indicate by the addition of _-tii_ that a male person -is spoken about, while the women do not use this suffix and thus make -no distinction between ‘he’ and ‘she,’ ‘his’ and ‘her.’ Thus in the -men’s speech the following distinctions would be made: - - He went to his house: _yebotii ti n-ipoostii_. - He went to her house: _yebotii ti n-ipoos_. - She went to his house: _yebo ti n-ipoostii_. - -But to express all these different meanings the women would have only -one form, viz. - - _yebo ti n-ipoos_, - -which in the men’s speech would mean only ‘She went to her house.’ - -To many substantives the men prefix a vowel which the women do not -employ, thus _o-petas_ ‘turtle,’ _u-tamokos_ ‘dog,’ _i-pis_ ‘wood.’ For -some very important notions the sexes use distinct words; thus, for -the names of kinship, ‘my father’ is _iyai_ and _išupu_, ‘my mother’ -_ipaki_ and _ipapa_, ‘my brother’ _tsaruki_ and _ičibausi_ respectively. - -Among the languages of California, Yana, according to Dixon and Kroeber -(_The American Anthropologist_, n.s. 5. 15), is the only language that -shows a difference in the words used by men and women--apart from -terms of relationship, where a distinction according to the sex of -the speaker is made among many Californian tribes as well as in other -parts of the world, evidently “because the relationship itself is to -them different, as the sex is different.” But in Yana the distinction -is a linguistic one, and curiously enough, the few specimens given all -present a trait found already in the Chiquito forms, namely, that the -forms spoken by women are shorter than those of the men, which appear -as extensions, generally by suffixed _-(n)a_, of the former. - -It is surely needless to multiply instances of these customs, which -are found among many wild tribes; the curious reader may be referred -to Lasch, S. pp. 7-13, and H. Ploss and M. Bartels, _Das Weib in der -Natur und Völkerkunde_ (9th ed., Leipzig, 1908). The latter says -that the Suaheli system is not carried through so as to replace the -ordinary language, but the Suaheli have for every object which they -do not care to mention by its real name a symbolic word understood by -everybody concerned. In especial such symbols are used by women in -their mysteries to denote obscene things. The words chosen are either -ordinary names for innocent things or else taken from the old language -or other Bantu languages, mostly Kiziguha, for among the Waziguha -secret rites play an enormous rôle. Bartels finally says that with us, -too, women have separate names for everything connected with sexual -life, and he thinks that it is the same feeling of shame that underlies -this custom and the interdiction of pronouncing the names of male -relatives. This, however, does not explain everything, and, as already -indicated, superstition certainly has a large share in this as in other -forms of verbal tabu. See on this the very full account in the third -volume of Frazer’s _The Golden Bough_. - - -XIII.--§ 3. Competing Languages. - -A difference between the language spoken by men and that spoken by -women is seen in many countries where two languages are straggling -for supremacy in a peaceful way--thus without any question of one -nation exterminating the other or the male part of it. Among German -and Scandinavian immigrants in America the men mix much more with the -English-speaking population, and therefore have better opportunities, -and also more occasion, to learn English than their wives, who remain -more within doors. It is exactly the same among the Basques, where the -school, the military service and daily business relations contribute to -the extinction of Basque in favour of French, and where these factors -operate much more strongly on the male than on the female population: -there are families in which the wife talks Basque, while the husband -does not even understand Basque and does not allow his children to -learn it (Bornecque et Mühlen, _Les Provinces françaises_, 53). Vilhelm -Thomsen informs me that the old Livonian language, which is now nearly -extinct, is kept up with the greatest fidelity by the women, while the -men are abandoning it for Lettish. Albanian women, too, generally know -only Albanian, while the men are more often bilingual. - - -XIII.--§ 4. Sanskrit Drama. - -There are very few traces of real sex dialects in our Aryan languages, -though we have the very curious rule in the old Indian drama that women -talk Prakrit (_prākrta_, the natural or vulgar language) while men have -the privilege of talking Sanskrit (_samskrta_, the adorned language). -The distinction, however, is not one of sex really, but of rank, for -Sanskrit is the language of gods, kings, princes, brahmans, ministers, -chamberlains, dancing-masters and other men in superior positions and -of a very few women of special religious importance, while Prakrit is -spoken by men of an inferior class, like shopkeepers, law officers, -aldermen, bathmen, fishermen and policemen, and by nearly all women. -The difference between the two ‘languages’ is one of degree only: they -are two strata of the same language, one higher, more solemn, stiff and -archaic, and another lower, more natural and familiar, and this easy, -or perhaps we should say slipshod, style is the only one recognized for -ordinary women. The difference may not be greater than that between the -language of a judge and that of a costermonger in a modern novel, or -between Juliet’s and her nurse’s expressions in Shakespeare, and if all -women, even those we should call the ‘heroines’ of the plays, use only -the lower stratum of speech, the reason certainly is that the social -position of women was so inferior that they ranked only with men of the -lower orders and had no share in the higher culture which, with the -refined language, was the privilege of a small class of selected men. - - -XIII.--§ 5. Conservatism. - -As Prakrit is a ‘younger’ and ‘worn-out’ form of Sanskrit, the question -here naturally arises: What is the general attitude of the two sexes -to those changes that are constantly going on in languages? Can they -be ascribed exclusively or predominantly to one of the sexes? Or do -both equally participate in them? An answer that is very often given -is that as a rule women are more conservative than men, and that -they do nothing more than keep to the traditional language which -they have learnt from their parents and hand on to their children, -while innovations are due to the initiative of men. Thus Cicero in an -often-quoted passage says that when he hears his mother-in-law Lælia, -it is to him as if he heard Plautus or Nævius, for it is more natural -for women to keep the old language uncorrupted, as they do not hear -many people’s way of speaking and thus retain what they have first -learnt (_De oratore_, III. 45). This, however, does not hold good in -every respect and in every people. The French engineer, Victor Renault, -who lived for a long time among the Botocudos (in South America) and -compiled vocabularies for two of their tribes, speaks of the ease -with which he could make the savages who accompanied him invent new -words for anything. “One of them called out the word in a loud voice, -as if seized by a sudden idea, and the others would repeat it amid -laughter and excited shouts, and then it was universally adopted. But -the curious thing is that it was nearly always the women who busied -themselves in inventing new words as well as in composing songs, -dirges and rhetorical essays. The word-formations here alluded to are -probably names of objects that the Botocudos had not known previously -... as for horse, _krainejoune_, ‘head-teeth’; for ox, _po-kekri_, -‘foot-cloven’; for donkey, _mgo-jonne-orône_, ‘beast with long ears.’ -But well-known objects which have already got a name have often similar -new denominations invented for them, which are then soon accepted by -the family and community and spread more and more” (_v._ Martius, -_Beitr. zur Ethnogr. u. Sprachenkunde Amerikas_, 1867, i. 330). - -I may also quote what E. R. Edwards says in his _Étude phonétique de -la langue japonaise_ (Leipzig, 1903, p. 79): “In France and in England -it might be said that women avoid neologisms and are careful not to -go too far away from the written forms: in Southern England the sound -written _wh_ [ʍ] is scarcely ever pronounced except in girls’ schools. -In Japan, on the contrary, women are less conservative than men, -whether in pronunciation or in the selection of words and expressions. -One of the chief reasons is that women have not to the same degree as -men undergone the influence of the written language. As an example of -the liberties which the women take may be mentioned that there is in -the actual pronunciation of Tokyo a strong tendency to get rid of the -sound (_w_), but the women go further in the word _atashi_, which men -pronounce _watashi_ or _watakshi_, ‘I.’ Another tendency noticed in -the language of Japanese women is pretty widely spread among French -and English women, namely, the excessive use of intensive words and -the exaggeration of stress and tone-accent to mark emphasis. Japanese -women also make a much more frequent use than men of the prefixes of -politeness _o-_, _go-_ and _mi-_.” - - -XIII.--§ 6. Phonetics and Grammar. - -In connexion with some of the phonetic changes which have profoundly -modified the English sound system we have express statements by old -grammarians that women had a more advanced pronunciation than men, and -characteristically enough these statements refer to the raising of the -vowels in the direction of [i]; thus in Sir Thomas Smith (1567), who -uses expressions like “mulierculæ quædam delicatiores, et nonnulli qui -volunt isto modo videri loqui urbanius,” and in another place “fœminæ -quædam delicatiores,” further in Mulcaster (1582)[53] and in Milton’s -teacher, Alexander Gill (1621), who speaks about “nostræ Mopsæ, quæ -quidem ita omnia attenuant.” - -In France, about 1700, women were inclined to pronounce _e_ instead -of _a_; thus Alemand (1688) mentions _Barnabé_ as “façon de prononcer -mâle” and _Bernabé_ as the pronunciation of “les gens polis et délicats -... les dames surtout”; and Grimarest (1712) speaks of “ces marchandes -du Palais, qui au lieu de _madame_, _boulevart_, etc., prononcent -_medeme_, _boulevert_” (Thurot i. 12 and 9). - -There is one change characteristic of many languages in which it seems -as if women have played an important part even if they are not solely -responsible for it: I refer to the weakening of the old fully trilled -tongue-point _r_. I have elsewhere (_Fonetik_, p. 417 ff.) tried to -show that this weakening, which results in various sounds and sometimes -in a complete omission of the sound in some positions, is in the main -a consequence of, or at any rate favoured by, a change in social life: -the old loud trilled point sound is natural and justified when life is -chiefly carried on out-of-doors, but indoor life prefers, on the whole, -less noisy speech habits, and the more refined this domestic life is, -the more all kinds of noises and even speech sounds will be toned down. -One of the results is that this original _r_ sound, the rubadub in the -orchestra of language, is no longer allowed to bombard the ears, but is -softened down in various ways, as we see chiefly in the great cities -and among the educated classes, while the rustic population in many -countries keeps up the old sound with much greater conservatism. Now -we find that women are not unfrequently mentioned in connexion with -this reduction of the trilled _r_; thus in the sixteenth century in -France there was a tendency to leave off the trilling and even to go -further than to the present English untrilled point _r_ by pronouncing -[z] instead, but some of the old grammarians mention this pronunciation -as characteristic of women and a few men who imitate women (Erasmus: -mulierculæ Parisinæ; Sylvius: mulierculæ ... Parrhisinæ, et earum modo -quidam parum viri; Pillot: Parisinæ mulierculæ ... adeo delicatulæ -sunt, ut pro _pere_ dicant _pese_). In the ordinary language there are -a few remnants of this tendency; thus, when by the side of the original -_chaire_ we now have also the form _chaise_, and it is worthy of note -that the latter form is reserved for the everyday signification (Engl. -chair, seat) as belonging more naturally to the speech of women, while -_chaire_ has the more special signification of ‘pulpit, professorial -chair.’ Now the same tendency to substitute [z]--or after a voiceless -sound [s]--for _r_ is found in our own days among the ladies of -Christiania, who will say _gzuelig_ for _gruelig_ and _fsygtelig_ for -_frygtelig_ (Brekke, _Bidrag til dansknorskens lydlære_, 1881, p. 17; -I have often heard the sound myself). And even in far-off Siberia we -find that the Chuckchi women will say _nídzak_ or _nízak_ for the -male _nírak_ ‘two,’ _zërka_ for _rërka_ ‘walrus,’ etc. (Nordqvist; see -fuller quotations in my _Fonetik_, p. 431). - -In present-day English there are said to be a few differences in -pronunciation between the two sexes; thus, according to Daniel -Jones, _soft_ is pronounced with a long vowel [sɔ·ft] by men and -with a short vowel [sɔft] by women; similarly [gɛel] is said to be a -special ladies’ pronunciation of _girl_, which men usually pronounce -[gə·l]; cf. also on _wh_ above, p. 243. So far as I have been able to -ascertain, the pronunciation [tʃuldrən] for [tʃildrən] _children_ is -much more frequent in women than in men. It may also be that women -are more inclined to give to the word _waistcoat_ the full long sound -in both syllables, while men, who have occasion to use the word -more frequently, tend to give it the historical form [weskət] (for -the shortening compare _breakfast_). But even if such observations -were multiplied--as probably they might easily be by an attentive -observer--they would be only more or less isolated instances, without -any deeper significance, and on the whole we must say that from the -phonetic point of view there is scarcely any difference between the -speech of men and that of women: the two sexes speak for all intents -and purposes the same language. - - -XIII.--§ 7. Choice of Words. - -But when from the field of phonetics we come to that of vocabulary and -style, we shall find a much greater number of differences, though they -have received very little attention in linguistic works. A few have -been mentioned by Greenough and Kittredge: “The use of _common_ in -the sense of ‘vulgar’ is distinctly a feminine peculiarity. It would -sound effeminate in the speech of a man. So, in a less degree, with -_person_ for ‘woman,’ in contrast to ‘lady.’ _Nice_ for ‘fine’ must -have originated in the same way” (W, p. 54). - -Others have told me that men will generally say ‘It’s very _good_ -of you,’ where women will say ‘It’s very _kind_ of you.’ But such -small details can hardly be said to be really characteristic of the -two sexes. There is no doubt, however, that women in all countries -are shy of mentioning certain parts of the human body and certain -natural functions by the direct and often rude denominations which -men, and especially young men, prefer when among themselves. Women -will therefore invent innocent and euphemistic words and paraphrases, -which sometimes may in the long run come to be looked upon as the plain -or blunt names, and therefore in their turn have to be avoided and -replaced by more decent words. - -In Pinero’s _The Gay Lord Quex_ (p. 116) a lady discovers some -French novels on the table of another lady, and says: “This is a -little--h’m--isn’t it?”--she does not even dare to say the word -‘indecent,’ and has to express the idea in inarticulate language. The -word ‘naked’ is paraphrased in the following description by a woman of -the work of girls in ammunition works: “They have to take off every -stitch from their bodies in one room, and run _in their innocence and -nothing else_ to another room where the special clothing is” (Bennett, -_The Pretty Lady_, 176). - -On the other hand, the old-fashioned prudery which prevented ladies -from using such words as _legs_ and _trousers_ (“those manly garments -which are rarely mentioned by name,” says Dickens, _Dombey_, 335) is -now rightly looked upon as exaggerated and more or less comical (cf. my -GS § 247). - -There can be no doubt that women exercise a great and universal -influence on linguistic development through their instinctive shrinking -from coarse and gross expressions and their preference for refined and -(in certain spheres) veiled and indirect expressions. In most cases -that influence will be exercised privately and in the bosom of the -family; but there is one historical instance in which a group of women -worked in that direction publicly and collectively; I refer to those -French ladies who in the seventeenth century gathered in the Hôtel de -Rambouillet and are generally known under the name of _Précieuses_. -They discussed questions of spelling and of purity of pronunciation -and diction, and favoured all kinds of elegant paraphrases by which -coarse and vulgar words might be avoided. In many ways this movement -was the counterpart of the literary wave which about that time was -inundating Europe under various names--Gongorism in Spain, Marinism -in Italy, Euphuism in England; but the Précieuses went further than -their male confrères in desiring to influence everyday language. When, -however, they used such expressions as, for ‘nose,’ ‘the door of the -brain,’ for ‘broom’ ‘the instrument of cleanness,’ and for ‘shirt’ ‘the -constant companion of the dead and the living’ (la compagne perpétuelle -des morts et des vivants), and many others, their affectation called -down on their heads a ripple of laughter, and their endeavours would -now have been forgotten but for the immortal satire of Molière in _Les -Précieuses ridicules_ and _Les Femmes savantes_. But apart from such -exaggerations the feminine point of view is unassailable, and there is -reason to congratulate those nations, the English among them, in which -the social position of women has been high enough to secure greater -purity and freedom from coarseness in language than would have been the -case if men had been the sole arbiters of speech. - -Among the things women object to in language must be specially -mentioned anything that smacks of swearing[54]; where a man will say -“He told an infernal lie,” a woman will rather say, “He told a most -dreadful fib.” Such euphemistic substitutes for the simple word ‘hell’ -as ‘the other place,’ ‘a very hot’ or ‘a very uncomfortable place’ -probably originated with women. They will also use _ever_ to add -emphasis to an interrogative pronoun, as in “Whoever told you that?” or -“Whatever do you mean?” and avoid the stronger ‘who the devil’ or ‘what -the dickens.’ For surprise we have the feminine exclamations ‘Good -gracious,’ ‘Gracious me,’ ‘Goodness gracious,’ ‘Dear me’ by the side of -the more masculine ‘Good heavens,’ ‘Great Scott.’ ‘To be sure’ is said -to be more frequent with women than with men. Such instances might be -multiplied, but these may suffice here. It will easily be seen that we -have here civilized counterparts of what was above mentioned as sexual -tabu; but it is worth noting that the interdiction in these cases is -ordained by the women themselves, or perhaps rather by the older among -them, while the young do not always willingly comply. - -Men will certainly with great justice object that there is a danger of -the language becoming languid and insipid if we are always to content -ourselves with women’s expressions, and that vigour and vividness -count for something. Most boys and many men have a dislike to some -words merely because they feel that they are used by everybody and on -every occasion: they want to avoid what is commonplace and banal and -to replace it by new and fresh expressions, whose very newness imparts -to them a flavour of their own. Men thus become the chief renovators -of language, and to them are due those changes by which we sometimes -see one term replace an older one, to give way in turn to a still newer -one, and so on. Thus we see in English that the old verb _weorpan_, -corresponding to G. _werfen_, was felt as too weak and therefore -supplanted by _cast_, which was taken from Scandinavian; after some -centuries _cast_ was replaced by the stronger _throw_, and this now, in -the parlance of boys especially, is giving way to stronger expressions -like _chuck_ and _fling_. The old verbs, or at any rate _cast_, may -be retained in certain applications, more particularly in some fixed -combinations and in figurative significations, but it is now hardly -possible to say, as Shakespeare does, “They cast their caps up.” Many -such innovations on their first appearance are counted as slang, and -some never make their way into received speech; but I am not in this -connexion concerned with the distinction between slang and recognized -language, except in so far as the inclination or disinclination to -invent and to use slang is undoubtedly one of the “human secondary -sexual characters.” This is not invalidated by the fact that quite -recently, with the rise of the feminist movement, many young ladies -have begun to imitate their brothers in that as well as in other -respects. - - -XIII.--§ 8. Vocabulary. - -This trait is indissolubly connected with another: the vocabulary of a -woman as a rule is much less extensive than that of a man. Women move -preferably in the central field of language, avoiding everything that -is out of the way or bizarre, while men will often either coin new -words or expressions or take up old-fashioned ones, if by that means -they are enabled, or think they are enabled, to find a more adequate -or precise expression for their thoughts. Woman as a rule follows the -main road of language, where man is often inclined to turn aside into a -narrow footpath or even to strike out a new path for himself. Most of -those who are in the habit of reading books in foreign languages will -have experienced a much greater average difficulty in books written -by male than by female authors, because they contain many more rare -words, dialect words, technical terms, etc. Those who want to learn a -foreign language will therefore always do well at the first stage to -read many ladies’ novels, because they will there continually meet with -just those everyday words and combinations which the foreigner is above -all in need of, what may be termed the indispensable small-change of a -language. - -This may be partly explicable from the education of women, which has -up to quite recent times been less comprehensive and technical than -that of men. But this does not account for everything, and certain -experiments made by the American professor Jastrow would tend to show -that we have here a trait that is independent of education. He asked -twenty-five university students of each sex, belonging to the same -class and thus in possession of the same preliminary training, to write -down as rapidly as possible a hundred words, and to record the time. -Words in sentences were not allowed. There were thus obtained 5,000 -words, and of these many were of course the same. But the community of -thought was greater in the women; while the men used 1,375 different -words, their female class-mates used only 1,123. Of 1,266 unique words -used, 29·8 per cent. were male, only 20·8 per cent. female. The group -into which the largest number of the men’s words fell was the animal -kingdom; the group into which the largest number of the women’s words -fell was wearing apparel and fabrics; while the men used only 53 -words belonging to the class of foods, the women used 179. “In general -the feminine traits revealed by this study are an attention to the -immediate surroundings, to the finished product, to the ornamental, -the individual, and the concrete; while the masculine preference is -for the more remote, the constructive, the useful, the general and the -abstract.” (See Havelock Ellis, _Man and Woman_, 4th ed., London, 1904, -p. 189.) - -Another point mentioned by Jastrow is the tendency to select words -that rime and alliterative words; both these tendencies were decidedly -more marked in men than in women. This shows what we may also notice -in other ways, that men take greater interest in words as such and in -their acoustic properties, while women pay less attention to that side -of words and merely take them as they are, as something given once -for all. Thus it comes that some men are confirmed punsters, while -women are generally slow to see any point in a pun and scarcely ever -perpetrate one themselves. Or, to get to something of greater value: -the science of language has very few votaries among women, in spite -of the fact that foreign languages, long before the reform of female -education, belonged to those things which women learnt best in and out -of schools, because, like music and embroidery, they were reckoned -among the specially feminine ‘accomplishments.’ - -Woman is linguistically quicker than man: quicker to learn, quicker -to hear, and quicker to answer. A man is slower: he hesitates, he -chews the cud to make sure of the taste of words, and thereby comes to -discover similarities with and differences from other words, both in -sound and in sense, thus preparing himself for the appropriate use of -the fittest noun or adjective. - - -XIII.--§ 9. Adverbs. - -While there are a few adjectives, such as _pretty_ and _nice_, that -might be mentioned as used more extensively by women than by men, there -are greater differences with regard to adverbs. Lord Chesterfield -wrote (_The World_, December 5, 1754): “Not contented with enriching -our language by words absolutely new, my fair countrywomen have gone -still farther, and improved it by the application and extension of old -ones to various and very different significations. They take a word -and change it, like a guinea into shillings for pocket-money, to be -employed in the several occasional purposes of the day. For instance, -the adjective _vast_ and its adverb _vastly_ mean anything, and are -the fashionable words of the most fashionable people. A fine woman ... -is _vastly_ obliged, or _vastly_ offended, _vastly_ glad, or _vastly_ -sorry. Large objects are _vastly_ great, small ones are _vastly_ -little; and I had lately the pleasure to hear a fine woman pronounce, -by a happy metonymy, a very small gold snuff-box, that was produced in -company, to be _vastly_ pretty, because it was so _vastly_ little.” -Even if that particular adverb to which Lord Chesterfield objected -has now to a great extent gone out of fashion, there is no doubt that -he has here touched on a distinctive trait: the fondness of women for -hyperbole will very often lead the fashion with regard to adverbs -of intensity, and these are very often used with disregard of their -proper meaning, as in German _riesig klein_, English _awfully pretty_, -_terribly nice_, French _rudement joli_, _affreusement délicieux_, -Danish _rædsom morsom_ (horribly amusing), Russian _strast’ kakoy -lovkiy_ (terribly able), etc. _Quite_, also, in the sense of ‘very,’ -as in ‘she was quite charming; it makes me quite angry,’ is, according -to Fitzedward Hall, due to the ladies. And I suspect that _just sweet_ -(as in Barrie: “Grizel thought it was just sweet of him”) is equally -characteristic of the usage of the fair sex. - -There is another intensive which has also something of the eternally -feminine about it, namely _so_. I am indebted to Stoffel (Int. 101) -for the following quotation from _Punch_ (January 4, 1896): “This -little adverb is a great favourite with ladies, in conjunction with an -adjective. For instance, they are very fond of using such expressions -as ‘He is _so_ charming!’ ‘It is _so_ lovely!’ etc.” Stoffel adds the -following instances of strongly intensive _so_ as highly characteristic -of ladies’ usage: ‘Thank you _so_ much!’ ‘It was _so_ kind of you to -think of it!’ ‘That’s _so_ like you!’ ‘I’m _so_ glad you’ve come!’ ‘The -bonnet is _so_ lovely!’ - -The explanation of this characteristic feminine usage is, I think, -that women much more often than men break off without finishing their -sentences, because they start talking without having thought out what -they are going to say; the sentence ‘I’m so glad you’ve come’ really -requires some complement in the shape of a clause with _that_, ‘so glad -that I really must kiss you,’ or, ‘so glad that I must treat you to -something extra,’ or whatever the consequence may be. But very often it -is difficult in a hurry to hit upon something adequate to say, and ‘so -glad that I cannot express it’ frequently results in the inexpressible -remaining unexpressed, and when that experiment has been repeated time -after time, the linguistic consequence is that a strongly stressed _so_ -acquires the force of ‘very much indeed.’ It is the same with _such_, -as in the following two extracts from a modern novel (in both it is a -lady who is speaking): “Poor Kitty! she has been in _such_ a state of -mind,” and “Do you know that you look _such_ a duck this afternoon.... -This hat suits you _so_--you are _such_ a _grande dame_ in it.” Exactly -the same thing has happened with Danish _så_ and _sådan_, G. _so_ and -_solch_; also with French _tellement_, though there perhaps not to the -same extent as in English. - -We have the same phenomenon with _to a degree_, which properly requires -to be supplemented with something that tells us what the degree is, but -is frequently left by itself, as in ‘His second marriage was irregular -to a degree.’ - - -XIII.--§ 10. Periods. - -The frequency with which women thus leave their exclamatory sentences -half-finished might be exemplified from many passages in our novelists -and dramatists. I select a few quotations. The first is from the -beginning of _Vanity Fair_: “This almost caused Jemima to faint with -terror. ‘Well, I never,’ said she. ‘What an audacious’--emotion -prevented her from completing either sentence.” Next from one of -Hankin’s plays. “Mrs. Eversleigh: I must say! (but words fail her).” -And finally from Compton Mackenzie’s _Poor Relations_: “‘The trouble -you must have taken,’ Hilda exclaimed.” These quotations illustrate -types of sentences which are becoming so frequent that they would seem -soon to deserve a separate chapter in modern grammars, ‘Did you ever?’ -‘Well, I never!’ being perhaps the most important of these ‘stop-short’ -or ‘pull-up’ sentences, as I think they might be termed. - -These sentences are the linguistic symptoms of a peculiarity of -feminine psychology which has not escaped observation. Meredith says -of one of his heroines: “She thought in blanks, as girls do, and some -women,” and Hardy singularizes one of his by calling her “that novelty -among women--one who finished a thought before beginning the sentence -which was to convey it.” - -The same point is seen in the typical way in which the two sexes build -up their sentences and periods; but here, as so often in this chapter, -we cannot establish absolute differences, but only preferences that may -be broken in a great many instances and yet are characteristic of the -sexes as such. If we compare long periods as constructed by men and by -women, we shall in the former find many more instances of intricate or -involute structures with clause within clause, a relative clause in the -middle of a conditional clause or vice versa, with subordination and -sub-subordination, while the typical form of long feminine periods is -that of co-ordination, one sentence or clause being added to another -on the same plane and the gradation between the respective ideas being -marked not grammatically, but emotionally, by stress and intonation, -and in writing by underlining. In learned terminology we may say that -men are fond of hypotaxis and women of parataxis. Or we may use the -simile that a male period is often like a set of Chinese boxes, one -within another, while a feminine period is like a set of pearls joined -together on a string of _ands_ and similar words. In a Danish comedy a -young girl is relating what has happened to her at a ball, when she is -suddenly interrupted by her brother, who has slyly taken out his watch -and now exclaims: “I declare! you have said _and then_ fifteen times in -less than two and a half minutes.” - - -XIII.--§ 11. General Characteristics. - -The greater rapidity of female thought is shown linguistically, among -other things, by the frequency with which a woman will use a pronoun -like _he_ or _she_, not of the person last mentioned, but of somebody -else to whom her thoughts have already wandered, while a man with his -slower intellect will think that she is still moving on the same path. -The difference in rapidity of perception has been tested experimentally -by Romanes: the same paragraph was presented to various well-educated -persons, who were asked to read it as rapidly as they could, ten -seconds being allowed for twenty lines. As soon as the time was up the -paragraph was removed, and the reader immediately wrote down all that -he or she could remember of it. It was found that women were usually -more successful than men in this test. Not only were they able to -read more quickly than the men, but they were able to give a better -account of the paragraph as a whole. One lady, for instance, could -read exactly four times as fast as her husband, and even then give -a better account than he of that small portion of the paragraph he -had alone been able to read. But it was found that this rapidity was -no proof of intellectual power, and some of the slowest readers were -highly distinguished men. Ellis (_Man and W._ 195) explains this in -this way: with the quick reader it is as though every statement were -admitted immediately and without inspection to fill the vacant chambers -of the mind, while with the slow reader every statement undergoes an -instinctive process of cross-examination; every new fact seems to stir -up the accumulated stores of facts among which it intrudes, and so -impedes rapidity of mental action. - -This reminds me of one of Swift’s “Thoughts on Various Subjects”: “The -common fluency of speech in many men, and most women, is owing to the -scarcity of matter, and scarcity of words; for whoever is a master of -language, and hath a mind full of ideas, will be apt in speaking to -hesitate upon the choice of both: whereas common speakers have only one -set of ideas, and one set of words to clothe them in; and these are -always ready at the mouth. So people come faster out of a church when -it is almost empty, than when a crowd is at the door” (_Works_, Dublin, -1735, i. 305). - -The volubility of women has been the subject of innumerable jests: it -has given rise to popular proverbs in many countries,[55] as well as -to Aurora Leigh’s resigned “A woman’s function plainly is--to talk” -and Oscar Wilde’s sneer, “Women are a decorative sex. They never have -anything to say, but they say it charmingly.” A woman’s thought is no -sooner formed than uttered. Says Rosalind, “Do you not know I am a -woman? when I think, I must speak” (_As You Like It_, III. 2. 264). And -in a modern novel a young girl says: “I talk so as to find out what I -think. Don’t you? Some things one can’t judge of till one hears them -spoken” (Housman, _John of Jingalo_, 346). - -The superior readiness of speech of women is a concomitant of the fact -that their vocabulary is smaller and more central than that of men. But -this again is connected with another indubitable fact, that women do -not reach the same extreme points as men, but are nearer the average -in most respects. Havelock Ellis, who establishes this in various -fields, rightly remarks that the statement that genius is undeniably -of more frequent occurrence among men than among women has sometimes -been regarded by women as a slur upon their sex, but that it does not -appear that women have been equally anxious to find fallacies in the -statement that idiocy is more common among men. Yet the two statements -must be taken together. Genius is more common among men by virtue of -the same general tendency by which idiocy is more common among men. The -two facts are but two aspects of a larger zoological fact--the greater -variability of the male (_Man and W._ 420). - -In language we see this very clearly: the highest linguistic genius -and the lowest degree of linguistic imbecility are very rarely found -among women. The greatest orators, the most famous literary artists, -have been men; but it may serve as a sort of consolation to the other -sex that there are a much greater number of men than of women who -cannot put two words together intelligibly, who stutter and stammer and -hesitate, and are unable to find suitable expressions for the simplest -thought. Between these two extremes the woman moves with a sure and -supple tongue which is ever ready to find words and to pronounce them -in a clear and intelligible manner. - -Nor are the reasons far to seek why such differences should have -developed. They are mainly dependent on the division of labour enjoined -in primitive tribes and to a great extent also among more civilized -peoples. For thousands of years the work that especially fell to men -was such as demanded an intense display of energy for a comparatively -short period, mainly in war and in hunting. Here, however, there was -not much occasion to talk, nay, in many circumstances talk might even -be fraught with danger. And when that rough work was over, the man -would either sleep or idle his time away, inert and torpid, more or -less in silence. Woman, on the other hand, had a number of domestic -occupations which did not claim such an enormous output of spasmodic -energy. To her was at first left not only agriculture, and a great -deal of other work which in more peaceful times was taken over by men; -but also much that has been till quite recently her almost exclusive -concern--the care of the children, cooking, brewing, baking, sewing, -washing, etc.,--things which for the most part demanded no deep -thought, which were performed in company and could well be accompanied -with a lively chatter. Lingering effects of this state of things are -seen still, though great social changes are going on in our times which -may eventually modify even the linguistic relations of the two sexes. - -FOOTNOTES: - -[53] “_Ai_ is the man’s diphthong, and soundeth full: _ei_, the -woman’s, and soundeth finish [i.e. fineish] in the same both sense, -and vse, _a woman is deintie, and feinteth soon, the man fainteth -not bycause he is nothing daintie_.” Thus what is now distinctive of -refined as opposed to vulgar pronunciation was then characteristic of -the fair sex. - -[54] There are great differences with regard to swearing between -different nations; but I think that in those countries and in those -circles in which swearing is common it is found much more extensively -among men than among women: this at any rate is true of Denmark. There -is, however, a general social movement against swearing, and now there -are many men who never swear. A friend writes to me: “The best English -men hardly swear at all.... I imagine some of our fashionable women now -swear as much as the men they consort with.” - -[55] “Où femme y a, silence n’y a.” “Deux femmes font un plaid, trois -un grand caquet, quatre un plein marché.” “Due donne e un’ oca fanno -una fiera” (Venice). “The tongue is the sword of a woman, and she never -lets it become rusty” (China). “The North Sea will sooner be found -wanting in water than a woman at a loss for a word” (Jutland). - - - - -CHAPTER XIV - -CAUSES OF CHANGE - - § 1. Anatomy. § 2. Geography. § 3. National Psychology. § 4. Speed - of Utterance. § 5. Periods of Rapid Change. § 6. The Ease Theory. - § 7. Sounds in Connected Speech. § 8. Extreme Weakenings. § 9. The - Principle of Value. § 10. Application to Case System, etc. § 11. - Stress Phenomena. § 12. Non-phonetic Changes. - - -XIV.--§ 1. Anatomy. - -In accordance with the programme laid down in the opening paragraph of -Book III, we shall now deal in detail with those linguistic changes -which are not due to transference to new individuals. The chapter on -woman’s language has served as a kind of bridge between the two main -divisions, in so far as the first sections treated of those women’s -dialects which were, or were supposed to be, due to the influence of -foreigners. - -Many theories have been advanced to explain the indubitable fact that -languages change in course of time. Some scholars have thought that -there ought to be one fundamental cause working in all instances, -while others, more sensibly, have maintained that a variety of causes -have been and are at work, and that it is not easy to determine -which of them has been decisive in each observed case of change. The -greatest attention has been given to phonetic change, and in reading -some theorists one might almost fancy that sounds were the only thing -changeable, or at any rate that phonetic changes were the only ones in -language which had to be accounted for. Let us now examine some of the -theories advanced. - -Sometimes it is asserted that sound changes must have their cause in -changes in the anatomical structure of the articulating organs. This -theory, however, need not detain us long (see the able discussion in -Oertel, p. 194 ff.), for no facts have been alleged to support it, and -one does not see why small anatomical variations should cause changes -so long as any teacher of languages on the phonetic method is able to -teach his pupils practically every speech sound, even those that their -own native language has been without for centuries. Besides, many -phonetic changes do not at all lead to new sounds being developed or -old ones lost, but simply to the old sounds being used in new places -or disused in some of the places where they were formerly found. Some -tribes have a custom of mutilating their lips or teeth, and that of -course must have caused changes in their pronunciation, which are said -to have persisted even after the custom was given up. Thus, according -to Meinhof (MSA 60) the Yao women insert a big wooden disk within the -upper lip, which makes it impossible for them to pronounce [f], and -as it is the women that teach their children to speak, the sound of -[f] has disappeared from the language, though now it is beginning to -reappear in loan-words. It is clear, however, that such customs can -have exercised only the very slightest influence on language in general. - - -XIV.--§ 2. Geography. - -Some scholars have believed in an influence exercised by climatic -or geographical conditions on the character of the sound system, -instancing as evidence the harsh consonants found in the languages of -the Caucasus as contrasted with the pleasanter sounds heard in regions -more favoured by nature. But this influence cannot be established as -a general rule. “The aboriginal inhabitants of the north-west coast -of America found subsistence relatively easy in a country abounding -in many forms of edible marine life; nor can they be said to have -been subjected to rigorous climatic conditions; yet in phonetic -harshness their languages rival those of the Caucasus. On the other -hand, perhaps no people has ever been subjected to a more forbidding -physical environment than the Eskimos, yet the Eskimo language not -only impresses one as possessed of a relatively agreeable phonetic -system when compared with the languages of the north-west coast, -but may even be thought to compare favourably with American Indian -languages generally” (Sapir, _American Anthropologist_, XIV (1912), -234). It would also on this theory be difficult to account for the very -considerable linguistic changes which have taken place in historical -times in many countries whose climate, etc., cannot during the same -period have changed correspondingly. - -A geographical theory of sound-shifting was advanced by Heinrich -Meyer-Benfey in _Zeitschr. f. deutsches Altert._ 45 (1901), and has -recently been taken up by H. Collitz in _Amer. Journal of Philol._ -39 (1918), p. 413. Consonant shifting is chiefly found in mountain -regions; this is most obvious in the High German shift, which started -from the Alpine district of Southern Germany. After leaving the region -of the high mountains it gradually decreases in strength; yet it -keeps on extending, with steadily diminishing energy, over part of -the area of the Franconian dialects. But having reached the plains -of Northern Germany, the movement stops. The same theory applies to -languages in which a similar shifting is found, e.g. Old and Modern -Armenian, the Soho language in South Africa, etc. “However strange it -may appear at the first glance,” says Collitz, “that certain consonant -changes should depend on geographical surroundings, the connexion is -easily understood. The change of media to tenuis and that of tenuis to -affricate or aspirate are linked together by a common feature, viz. -an increase in the intensity of expiration. As the common cause of -both these shiftings we may therefore regard a change in the manner in -which breath is used for pronunciation. The habitual use of a larger -volume of breath means an increased activity of the lungs. Here we have -reached the point where the connexion with geographical or climatic -conditions is clear, because nobody will deny that residence in the -mountains, especially in the high mountains, stimulates the lungs.” - -When this theory was first brought to my notice, I wrote a short -footnote on it (PhG 176), in which I treated it with perhaps too little -respect, merely mentioning the fact that my countrymen, the Danes, in -their flat country were developing exactly the same shift as the High -Germans (making _p_, _t_, _k_ into strongly aspirated or affricated -sounds and unvoicing _b_, _d_, _g_); I then asked ironically whether -that might be a consequence of the indubitable fact that an increasing -number of Danes every summer go to Switzerland and Norway for their -holidays. And even now, after the theory has been endorsed by so able -an advocate as Collitz, I fail to see how it can hold water. The -induction seems faulty on both sides, for the shift is found among -peoples living in plains, and on the other hand it is not shared by all -mountain peoples--for example, not by the Italian and Ladin speaking -neighbours of the High Germans in the Alps. Besides, the physiological -explanation is not impeccable, for walking in the mountains affects -the way in which we breathe, that is, it primarily affects the lungs, -but the change in the consonants is primarily one not in the lungs, -but in the glottis; as the connexion between these two things is not -necessary, the whole reasoning is far from being cogent. At any rate, -the theory can only with great difficulty be applied to the first -Gothonic shift, for how do we know that that started in mountainous -regions? and who knows whether the sounds actually found as _f_, _þ_ -and _h_ for original _p_, _t_, _k_, had first been aspirated and -affricated stops? It seems much more probable that the transition was a -direct one, through slackening and opening of the stoppage, but in that -case it has nothing to do with the lungs or way of breathing. - - -XIV.--§ 3. National Psychology. - -We are much more likely to ‘burn,’ as the children say, when, instead -of looking for the cause in such outward circumstances, we try to find -it in the psychology of those who initiate the change. But this does -not amount to endorsing all the explanations of this kind which have -found favour with linguists. Thus, since the times of Grimm it has -been usual to ascribe the well-known consonant shift to psychological -traits believed to be characteristic of the Germans. Grimm says that -the sound shift is a consequence of the progressive tendency and desire -of liberty found in the Germans (GDS 292); it is due to their courage -and pride in the period of the great migration of tribes (ib. 306): -“When quiet and morality returned, the sounds remained, and it may be -reckoned as evidence of the superior gentleness and moderation of the -Gothic, Saxon and Scandinavian tribes that they contented themselves -with the first shift, while the wilder force of the High Germans was -impelled to the second shift.” (Thus also Westphal.) Curtius finds -energy and juvenile vigour in the Germanic sound shift (KZ 2. 331, -1852). Müllenhof saw in the transition from _p_, _t_, _k_ to _f_, -_þ_, _h_ a sign of weakening, the Germans having apparently lost -the power of pronouncing the hard stops; while further, the giving -up of the aspirated _ph_, _th_, _kh_, _bh_, _dh_, _gh_ was due to -enervation or indolence. But the succeeding transition from the old -_b_, _d_, _g_ to _p_, _t_, _k_ showed that they had afterwards pulled -themselves together to new exertions, and the regularity with which all -these changes were carried through evidenced a great steadiness and -persevering force (_Deutsche Altertumsk._ 2. 197). His disciple Wilhelm -Scherer saw in the whole history of the German language alternating -periods of rise and decline in popular taste; he looked upon sound -changes from the æsthetic point of view and ascribed the (second) -consonant shift to a feminine period in which consonants were neglected -because the nation took pleasure in vocalic sounds. - - -XIV.--§ 4. Speed of Utterance. - -Wundt gives a different though somewhat related explanation of the -Germanic shift as due to a “revolution in culture, as the subjugation -of a native population through warlike immigrants, with resulting new -organization of the State” (S 1. 424): this increased the speed of -utterance, and he tries in detail to show that increased speed leads -naturally to just those changes in consonants which are found in the -Gothonic shift (1. 420 ff.). But even if we admit that the average -speed of talking (tempo der rede) is now probably greater than -formerly, the whole theory is built up on so many doubtful or even -manifestly incorrect details both in linguistic history and in general -phonetic theory that it cannot be accepted. It does not account for the -actual facts of the consonant shifts; moreover, it is difficult to see -why such phenomena as this shift, if they were dependent on the speed -of utterance, should occur only at these particular historical times -and within comparatively narrow geographical limits, for there is much -to be said for the view that in all periods the speech of the Western -nations has been constantly gaining in rapidity as life in general has -become accelerated, and in no period probably more than during the last -century, which has witnessed no radical consonant shift in any of the -leading civilized nations. - - -XIV.--§ 5. Periods of Rapid Change. - -All these theories, different though they are in detail, have this -in common, that they endeavour to explain one particular change, or -set of changes, from one particular psychological trait supposed to -be prevalent at the time when the change took place, but they fail -because we are not able scientifically to demonstrate any intimate -connexion between the pronunciation of particular sounds and a certain -state of mind, and also because our knowledge of the fluctuations -of collective psychology is still so very imperfect. But it is -interesting to contrast these theories with the explanation of the -very same sound shifts mentioned in a previous chapter (XI), and -there shown to be equally unsatisfactory, the explanation, namely, -that the fundamental cause of the consonant shift is to be found in -the peculiar pronunciation of an aboriginal population. In both cases -the Gothonic shifts are singled out, because since the time of Grimm -the attention of scholars has been focused on these changes more than -on any others--they are looked upon as changes _sui generis_, and -therefore requiring a special explanation, such as is not thought -necessary in the case of the innumerable minor changes that fill most -of the pages of the phonological section of any historical grammar. -But the sober truth seems to be that these shifts are not different -in kind from those that have made, say, Fr. _sève_, _frère_, _chien_, -_ciel_, _faire_, _changer_ out of Lat. _sapa_, _fratrem_, _canem_, -_kælum_, _fakere_, _cambiare_, etc., or those that have changed the -English vowels in _fate_, _feet_, _fight_, _foot_, _out_ from what they -were when the letters which denote them still had their ‘continental’ -values. Our main endeavour, therefore, must be to find out general -reasons why sounds should not always remain unchanged. This seems more -important, at any rate as a preliminary investigation, than attempting -offhand to assign particular reasons why in such and such a century -this or that sound was changed in some particular way. - -If, however, we find a particular period especially fertile in -linguistic changes (phonetic, morphological, semantic, or all at once), -it is quite natural that we should turn our attention to the social -state of the community at that time in order, if possible, to discover -some specially favouring circumstances. I am thinking especially of -two kinds of condition which may operate. In the first place, the -influence of parents, and grown-up people generally, may be less than -usual, because an unusual number of parents may be away from home, as -in great wars of long duration, or may have been killed off, as in the -great plagues; cf. also what was said above of children left to shift -for themselves in certain favoured regions of North America (Ch. X § -7). Secondly, there may be periods in which the ordinary restraints on -linguistic change make themselves less felt than usual, because the -whole community is animated by a strong feeling of independence and -wants to break loose from social ties of many kinds, including those -of a powerful school organization or literary tradition. This probably -was the case with North America in the latter half of the eighteenth -century, when the new nation wished to manifest its independence of -old England and therefore, among other things, was inclined to throw -overboard that respect for linguistic authority which under normal -conditions makes for conservatism. If the divergence between American -and British English is not greater than it actually is, this is -probably due partly to the continual influx of immigrants from the old -country, and partly to that increased facility of communication between -the two countries in recent times which has made mutual linguistic -influence possible to an extent formerly undreamt-of. But in the -case of the Romanic languages both of the conditions mentioned were -operating: during the centuries in which they were framed and underwent -the strongest differentiation, wars with the intruding ‘barbarians’ -and a series of destructive plagues kept away or killed a great many -grown-up people, and at the same time each country released itself from -the centralizing influence of Rome, which in the first centuries of the -Christian era had been very powerful in keeping up a fairly uniform -and conservative pronunciation and phraseology throughout the whole -Empire.[56] There were thus at that time various forces at work which, -taken together, are quite sufficient to explain the wide divergence in -linguistic structure that separated French, Provençal, Spanish, etc., -from classical Latin (cf. above, XI § 8, p. 206). - -In the history of English, one of the periods most fertile in change -is the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries: the wars with France, the -Black Death (which is said to have killed off about one-third of the -population) and similar pestilences, insurrections like those of Wat -Tyler and Jack Cade, civil wars like those of the Roses, decimated the -men and made home-life difficult and unsettled. In the Scandinavian -languages the Viking age is probably the period that witnessed the -greatest linguistic changes--if I am right, not, as has sometimes been -said, on account of the heroic character of the period and the violent -rise in self-respect or self-assertion, but for the more prosaic reason -that the men were absent and the women had other things to attend to -than their children’s linguistic education. I am also inclined to think -that the unparalleled rapidity with which, during the last hundred -years, the vulgar speech of English cities has been differentiated -from the language of the educated classes (nearly all long vowels -being shifted, etc.) finds its natural explanation in the unexampled -misery of child-life among industrial workers in the first half of the -last century--one of the most disgraceful blots on our overpraised -civilization. - - -XIV.--§ 6. The Ease Theory. - -If we now turn to the actuating principles that determine the general -changeability of human speech habits, we shall find that the moving -power everywhere is an impetus starting from the individual, and that -there is a curbing power in the mere fact that language exists not for -the individual alone, but for the whole community. The whole history -of language is, as it were, a tug-of-war between these two principles, -each of which gains victories in turn. - -First of all we must make up our minds with regard to the disputed -question whether the changes of language go in the direction of -greater ease, in other words, whether they manifest a tendency -towards economy of effort. The prevalent opinion among the older -school was that the chief tendency was, in Whitney’s words, “to make -things easy to our organs of speech, to economize time and effort -in the work of expression” (L 28). Curtius very emphatically states -that “Bequemlichkeit ist und bleibt der hauptanlass des lautwandels -unter allen umständen” (_Griech. etym._ 23; cf. C 7). But Leskien, -Sievers, and since them other recent writers, hold the opposite view -(see quotations and summaries in Oertel 204 f., Wechssler L 88 f.), -and their view has prevailed to the extent that Sütterlin (WW 33) -characterizes the old view as “empty talk,” “a wrong scent,” and -“worthless subterfuges now rejected by our science.” - -Such strong words may, however, be out of place, for is it so very -foolish to think that men in this, as in all other respects, tend to -follow ‘the line of least resistance’ and to get off with as little -exertion as possible? The question is only whether this universal -tendency can be shown to prevail in those phonetic changes which are -dealt with in linguistic history. - -Sütterlin thinks it enough to mention some sound changes in which -the new sound is more difficult than the old; these being admitted, -he concludes (and others have said the same thing) that those other -instances in which the new sound is evidently easier than the old one -cannot be explained by the principle of ease. But it seems clear that -this conclusion is not valid: the correct inference can only be that -the tendency towards ease may be at work in some cases, though not in -all, because there are other forces which may at times neutralize it or -prove stronger than it. We shall meet a similar all-or-nothing fallacy -in the chapter on Sound Symbolism. - -Now, it is sometimes said that natives do not feel any difficulty in -the sounds of their own language, however difficult these may be to -foreigners. This is quite true if we speak of a _conscious_ perception -of this or that sound being difficult to produce; but it is no less -true that the act of speaking always requires some exertion, muscular -as well as psychical, on the part of the speaker, and that he is -therefore apt on many occasions to speak with as little effort as -possible, often with the result that his voice is not loud enough, or -that his words become indistinct if he does not move his tongue, lips, -etc., with the required precision or force. You may as well say that -when once one has learnt the art of writing, it is no longer any effort -to form one’s letters properly; and yet how many written communications -do we not receive in which many of the letters are formed so badly that -we can do little but guess from the context what each form is meant -for! There can be no doubt that the main direction of change in the -development of our written alphabet has been towards forms requiring -less and less exertion--and similar causes have led to analogous -results in the development of spoken sounds. - -It is not always easy to decide which of two articulations is the -easier one, and opinions may in some instances differ--we may also -find in two neighbouring nations opposite phonetic developments, each -of which may perhaps be asserted by speakers of the language to be in -the direction of greater ease. “To judge of the difficulty of muscular -activity, the muscular quantity at play cannot serve as an absolute -measure. Is [d] absolutely more awkward to produce than [ð]? When a man -is running full tilt, it is under certain circumstances easier for him -to rush against the wall than to stop suddenly at some distance from -it: when the tongue is in motion, it may be easier for it to thrust -itself against the roof of the mouth or the teeth, i.e. to form a stop -(a plosive), than to halt at a millimetre’s distance, i.e. to form a -fricative” (Verner 78). In the same sense I wrote in 1904: “Many an -articulation which obviously requires greater muscular movements is yet -easier of execution than another in which the movement is less, but has -to be carried out with greater precision: it requires less effort to -chip wood than to operate for cataract” (PhG 181). - -In other cases, however, no such doubt is possible: [s], [f] or [x] -require more muscular exertion than [h], and a replacement of one of -them by [h] therefore necessarily means a lessening of effort. Now, I -am firmly convinced that whenever a phonologist finds one of these oral -fricatives standing regularly in one language against [h] in another, -he will at once take the former sound to be the original and [h] to -be the derived sound: an indisputable indication that the instinctive -feeling of all linguists is still in favour of the view that a movement -towards the easier sound is the rule, and not the exception. - -In thus taking up the cudgels for the ease theory I am not afraid of -hearing the objection that I ascribe too great power to human laziness, -indolence, inertia, shirking, easygoingness, sloth, sluggishness, lack -of energy, or whatever other beautiful synonyms have been invented for -‘economy of effort’ or ‘following the line of least resistance.’ The -fact remains that there _is_ such a ‘tendency’ in all human beings, and -by taking it into account in explaining changes of sound we are doing -nothing else than applying here the same principle that attributes many -simplifications of form to ‘analogy’: we see the same psychological -force at work in the two different domains of phonetics and morphology. - -It is, of course, no serious objection to this view that if this had -been always the direction of change, speaking must have been uncommonly -troublesome to our earliest ancestors[57]--who says it wasn’t?--or -that “if certain combinations were really irksome in themselves, why -should they have been attempted at all; why should they often have been -maintained so long?” (Oertel 204)--as if people at a remote age had -been able to compare consciously two articulations and to choose the -easier one! Neither in language nor in any other activity has mankind -at once hit upon the best or easiest expedients. - - -XIV.--§ 7. Sounds in Connected Speech. - -In the great majority of linguistic changes we have to consider the -ease or difficulty, not of the isolated sound, but of the sound in -that particular conjunction with other sounds in which it occurs in -words.[58] Thus in the numerous phenomena comprised under the name of -assimilation. There is an interesting account in the _Proceedings of -the Philological Society_ (December 17, 1886) of a discussion of these -problems, in which Sweet, while maintaining that “cases of saving of -effort were very rare or non-existent” and that “all the ordinary -sounds of language were about on a par as to difficulty of production,” -said that assimilation “sprang from the desire to save space in -articulation and secure ease of transition. Thus _pn_ became _pm_, or -else _mn_.” But in both these changes there is saving of effort, for -in the former the movement of the tip of the tongue required for [n], -and in the latter the movement of the soft palate required for [p], -is done away with[59]: the term “saving of space” can have no other -meaning than economy of muscular energy. And the same is true of what -Sweet terms “saving of time,” which he finds effected by dropping -superfluous sounds, especially at the end of words, e.g. [g] after [ŋ] -in E. _sing_. Here, of course, one articulation (of the velum) is saved -and this need not even be accompanied by the saving of any time, for in -such cases the remaining sound is often lengthened so as to make up for -the loss.[60] - -If, then, all assimilations are to be counted as instances of saving -of effort, it is worth noting that a great many phonetic changes -which are not always given under the heading of assimilation should -really be looked upon as such. If Lat. _saponem_ yields Fr. _savon_, -this is the result of a whole series of assimilations: first [p] -becomes [b], because the vocal vibrations continue from the vowel -before to the vowel after the consonant, the opening of the glottis -being thus saved; then the transition of [b] to [v] between vowels may -be considered a partial assimilation to the open lip position of the -vowels; the vowel [o] is nasalized in consequence of an assimilation -to the nasal [n] (anticipation of the low position of the velum), and -the subsequent dropping of the consonant [n] is a clear case of a -different kind of assimilation (saving of a tip movement); at an early -stage the two final sounds of _saponem_ had disappeared, first [m] and -later the indistinct vowel resulting from _e_: whether we reckon these -disappearances as assimilations or not, at any rate they constitute -a saving of effort. All droppings of sounds, whether consonants (as -_t_ in E. _castle_, _postman_, etc.) or vowels (as in E. _p’rhaps_, -_bus’ness_, etc.), are to be viewed in the same light, and thus by -their enormous number in the history of all languages form a strong -argument in favour of the ease theory. - -There is one more thing to be considered which is generally overlooked. -In such assimilations as It. _otto_, _sette_, from _octo_, _septem_, -a greater ease is effected not only by the assimilation as such, by -which one of the consonants is dropped--for that would have been -obtained just as well if the result had been _occo_, _seppe_--but also -by the fact that it is the tip action which has been retained in both -cases, for the tip of the tongue is much more flexible and more easily -moved than either the lips or the back of the tongue. On the whole, -many sound changes show how the tip is favoured at the cost of other -organs, thus in the frequent transition of final _-m_ to _-n_, found, -for instance, in old Gothonic, in Middle English, in ancient Greek, in -Balto-Slavic, in Finnish and in Chinese. - -In the discussion referred to above Sweet was seconded by Lecky, who -said that “assimilations vastly multiplied the number of elementary -sounds in a language, and therefore could not be described as -facilitating pronunciation.” This is a great exaggeration, for in -the vast majority of instances assimilation introduces no new sounds -at all (see, for instance, the lists in my LPh ch. xi.). Lecky was -probably thinking of such instances as when [k, g] before front vowels -become [tʃ, dʒ] or similar combinations, or when mutation caused by -[i] changes [u, o] into [y, ø], which sounds were not previously found -in the language. Here we might perhaps say that those individuals -who for the sake of their own ease introduced new sounds made things -more difficult for coming generations (though even that is not quite -certain), and the case would then be analogous to that of a man who -has learnt a foreign expression for a new idea and then introduces it -into his own language, thus burdening his countrymen with a new word -instead of thinking how the same idea might have been rendered by means -of native speech-material--in both cases a momentary alleviation is -obtained at the cost of a permanent disadvantage, but neither case can -be alleged against the view that the prevalent tendency among human -beings is to prefer the easiest and shortest cut. - - -XIV.--§ 8. Extreme Weakenings. - -When this lazy tendency is indulged to the full, the result is an -indistinct protracted vocal murmur, with here and there possibly one -or other sound (most often an _s_) rising to the surface: think, for -instance, of the way in which we often hear grace said, prayers mumbled -and other similar formulas muttered inarticulately, with half-closed -lips and the least possible movement of the rest of the vocal organs. -This is tolerated more or less in cases in which the utterance is -hardly meant as a communication to any human being; otherwise it will -generally be met with a request to repeat what has been said, the -social curb being thus applied to the easygoing tendencies of the -individual. Now, as a matter of fact, there are in every language a -certain number of word-forms that can only be explained by this very -laziness in pronouncing, which in extreme cases leads to complete -unintelligibility. - -Russian _sudar’_ (_gosudar’_), ‘sir,’ is colloquially shortened into -a mere _s_, which may in subservient speech be added to almost any -word as a meaningless enclitic. And curiously enough the same sound is -used in exactly the same way in conversational Spanish, as _buenos_ -for _bueno_ ‘good,’ only here it is a weakening of _señor_ (Hanssen, -_Span. gramm._ 60): thus two entirely different words, from identical -psychological motives, yield the same result in two distant countries. -Fr. _monsieur_, instead of [mɔ̃sjœ·r], as might be expected, sounds -[mɔsjø] and extremely frequently [msjø] and even [psjø], with a -transition not otherwise found in French. _Madame_ before a name is -very often shortened into [mam]; in English the same word becomes -a single sound in _yes’m_. The weakening of _mistress_ into _miss_ -and the old-fashioned _mas_ for _master_ also belong here, as do It. -forms for _signore_, _signora_: _gnor si_, _gnor no_, _gnora si_, -_sor Luigi_, _la sora sposa_, and Sp. _usted_ ‘you’ for _vuestra -merced_. Formulas of greeting and of politeness are liable to similar -truncations, e.g. E. _how d(e) do_, Dan. [gda’] or even [da’] for -_goddag_, G. [gmɔ̃in, gmɔ̃] for _guten morgen_, [na·mt] for _guten -abend_; Fr. _s’il vous plaît_ often becomes [siuplɛ, splɛ], and the -synonymous Dan. _vær så god_ is shortened into _værsgo_, of which -often only [sgo’] remains. In Russian popular speech some small words -are frequently inserted as a vague indication that the utterance or -idea belongs to some one else: _griu_, _grit_, _grim_, _gril_, various -mutilated forms of the verb _govorit’_ ‘say,’ _mol_ from _molvit’_ -‘speak,’ _de_ from _dejati_ (Boyer et Speranski, _Manuel_ 293 ff.); cp. -the obsolete E. _co_, _quo_, for _quoth_. In all the Balkan languages -a particle _vre_ is extensively used, which Hatzidakis has explained -from the vocative of OGr. _mōrós_. Modern Gr. _thà_ is now a particle -of futurity, but originates in _thená_, from _thélei_, ‘he will’ + _nà_ -from _hína_, ‘that.’ These examples must suffice to show that we have -here to do with a universal tendency in all languages. - - -XIV.--§ 9. The Principle of Value. - -To explain such deviations from normal phonetic development some -scholars have assumed that a word or form in frequent use is liable to -suffer exceptional treatment. Thus Vilhelm Thomsen, in his brilliant -paper (1879) on the Romanic verb _andare_, _andar_, _anar_, _aller_, -which he explains convincingly from Lat. _ambulare_, says that this -verb “belongs to a group of words which in all languages stand as -it were without the pale of the laws, that is, words which from -their frequent employment are exposed to far more violent changes -than other words, and therefore to some extent follow paths of their -own.”[61] Schuchardt (_Ueber die lautgesetze_, 1885) turned upon -the ‘young grammarians,’ Paul among the rest, who did not recognize -this principle, and said that one word (or one sound) may need -10,000 repetitions in order to be changed into another one, and that -consequently another word, which in the same time is used only 8,000 -times, must be behindhand in its phonetic development. Quite apart from -the fact that this number is evidently too small (for a moderately -loquacious woman will easily pronounce such a word as _he_ half a dozen -times as often as these figures every year), it is obvious that the -reasoning must be wrong, for were frequency the only decisive factor, -G. _morgen_ would have been treated in every other connexion exactly -as it is in _guten morgen_, and that is just what has not happened. -Frequency of repetition would in itself tend to render the habitude -firmly rooted, thus really capable of resisting change, rather than -the opposite; and instead of the purely mechanical explanation from -the number of times a word is repeated, we must look for a more -psychological explanation. This naturally must be found in the ease -with which a word is understood in the given connexion or situation, -and especially in its worthlessness for the purpose of communication. -Worthlessness, however, is not the moving power, but merely the -reason why less restraint than usual is imposed on the ever-present -inclination of speakers to minimize effort. A parallel from another, -though cognate, sphere of human activity may perhaps bring out my -point of view more clearly. The taking off of one’s hat, combined -with a low bow, served from the first to mark a more or less servile -submissiveness to a prince or conqueror; then the gesture was gradually -weakened, and a slight raising of the hat came to be a polite greeting -even between equals; this is reduced to a mere touching of the hat -or cap, and among friends the slightest movement of the hand in the -direction of the hat is thought a sufficient greeting. When, however, -it is important to indicate deference, the full ceremonial gesture is -still used (though not to the same extent by all nations); otherwise -no value is attached to it, and the inclination to spare oneself all -unnecessary exertion has caused it to dwindle down to the slightest -muscular action possible. - -The above instances of the truncation of everyday formulas, etc., -illustrate the length to which the ease principle can be carried when -a word has little significatory value and the intention of the speaker -can therefore be vaguely, but sufficiently, understood if the proper -sound is merely suggested or hinted at. But in most words, and even in -the words mentioned above, when they are to bear their full meaning, -the pronunciation cannot be slurred to the same extent, if the speaker -is to make himself understood. It is consequently his interest to -pronounce more carefully, and this means greater conservatism and -slower phonetic development on the whole. - -There are naturally many degrees of relative value or worthlessness, -and words may vary accordingly. An illustration may be taken from my -own mother-tongue: the two words _rigtig nok_, literally ‘correct -enough,’ are pronounced ['recti 'nɔk] or ['regdi 'nɔk] when keeping -their full signification, but when they are reduced to an adverb with -the same import as the weakened English _certainly_ or _(it is) true -(that)_, there are various shortened pronunciations in frequent use: -['rectnɔg, 'regdnɔg, 'regnɔg, 'renɔg, 'renəg]. The worthlessness may -affect a whole phrase, a word, or merely one syllable or sound. - - -XIV.--§ 10. Application to Case System, etc. - -Our principle is important in many domains of linguistic history. -If it is asked why the elaborate Old English system of cases and -genders has gradually disappeared, an answer that will meet with the -approval of most linguists of the ordinary school is (in the words of -J. A. H. Murray): “The total loss of grammatical gender in English, -and the almost complete disappearance of cases, are purely phonetic -phenomena”--supplemented, of course, by the recognition of the action -of analogy, to which is due, for instance, the levelling of the nom. -and dative plural OE. _stanas_ and _stanum_ under the single form -_stones_. The main explanation thus is the following: a phonetic -law, operating without regard to the signification, caused the OE. -unstressed vowels _-a_, _-e_, _-u_ to become merged in an obscure _-e_ -in Middle English; as these endings were very often distinctive of -cases, the Old English cases were consequently lost. Another phonetic -law was operating similarly by causing the loss of final _-n_, which -also played an important rôle in the old case system. And in this way -phonetic laws and analogy have between them made a clean sweep of it, -and we need look nowhere else for an explanation of the decay of the -old declensions. - -Here I beg to differ: a ‘phonetic law’ is not an explanation, but -something to be explained; it is nothing else but a mere statement of -facts, a formula of correspondence, which says nothing about the cause -of change, and we are therefore justified if we try to dig deeper and -penetrate to the real psychology of speech. Now, let us for a moment -suppose that each of the terminations _-a_, _-e_, _-u_ bore in Old -English its own distinctive and sharply defined meaning, which was -necessary to the right understanding of the sentences in which the -terminations occurred (something like the endings found in artificial -languages like Ido). Would there in that case be any probability that -a phonetic law tending to their levelling could ever have succeeded -in establishing itself? Most certainly not; the all-important regard -for intelligibility would have been sure to counteract any inclination -towards a slurred pronunciation of the endings. Nor would there have -been any occasion for new formations by analogy, as the formations were -already sufficiently analogous. But such a regularity was very far -from prevailing in Old English, as will be particularly clear from the -tabulation of the declensions as printed in my _Chapters on English_, -p. 10 ff.: it makes the whole question of causality appear in a much -clearer light than would be possible by any other arrangement of the -grammatical facts: the cause of the decay of the Old English apparatus -of declensions lay in its manifold incongruities. The same termination -did not always denote the same thing: _-u_ might be the nom. sg. masc. -(_sunu_) or fem. (_duru_), or the acc. or the dat., or the nom. or acc. -pl. neuter (_hofu_); _-a_ might be the nom. sg. masc. (_guma_), or the -dat. sg. masc. (_suna_), or the gen. sg. fem. (_dura_), or the nom. -pl. masc. or fem., or finally the gen. pl.; _-an_ might be the acc. or -dat. or gen. sg. or the nom. or acc. pl., etc. If we look at it from -the point of view of function, we get the same picture; the nom. pl., -for instance, might be denoted by the endings _-as_, _-an_, _-a_, _-e_, -_-u_, or by mutation without ending, or by the unchanged kernel; the -dat. sg. by _-e_, _-an_, _-re_, _-um_, by mutation, or the unchanged -kernel. The whole is one jumble of inconsistency, for many relations -plainly distinguished from each other in one class of words were but -imperfectly, if at all, distinguishable in another class. Add to this -that the names used above, dative, accusative, etc., have no clear -and definite meaning in the case of Old English, any more than in the -case of kindred tongues; sometimes it did not matter which of two or -more cases the speaker chose to employ: some verbs took indifferently -now one, now another case, and the same is to some extent true with -regard to prepositions. No wonder, therefore, that speakers would often -hesitate which of two vowels to use in the ending, and would tend -to indulge in the universal inclination to pronounce weak syllables -indistinctly and thus confuse the formerly distinct vowels _a_, _i_, -_e_, _u_ into the one neutral vowel [ə], which might even be left out -without detriment to the clear understanding of each sentence.[62] -The only endings that were capable of withstanding this general rout -were the two in _s_, _-as_ for the plural and _-es_ for the gen. sg.; -here the consonant was in itself more solid, as it were, than the -other consonants used in case endings (_n_, _m_), and, which is more -decisive, each of these terminations was confined to a more sharply -limited sphere of use than the other endings, and the functions for -which they served, that of the plural and that of the genitive, are -among the most indispensable ones for clearness of thought. Hence we -see that these endings from the earliest period of the English language -tend to be applied to other classes of nouns than those to which they -were at first confined (_-as_ to masc. _o_ stems ...), so as to be at -last used with practically all nouns. - -If explanations like Murray’s of the simplification of the English case -system are widely accepted, while views like those attempted here will -strike most readers of linguistic works as unfamiliar, the reason may, -partly at any rate, be the usual arrangement of historical and other -grammars. Here we first have chapters on phonology, in which the facts -are tabulated, each vowel being dealt with separately, no matter what -its function is in the flexional system; then, after all the sounds -have been treated in this way, we come to morphology (accidence, -formenlehre), in which it is natural to take the phonological facts as -granted or already known: these therefore come to be looked upon as -primary and morphology as secondary, and no attention is paid to the -_value_ of the sounds for the purposes of mutual understanding. - -But everyday observations show that sounds have not always the same -value. In ordinary conversation one may frequently notice how a -proper name or technical term, when first introduced, is pronounced -with particular care, while no such pains is taken when it recurs -afterwards: the stress becomes weaker, the unstressed vowels more -indistinct, and this or that consonant may be dropped. The same -principle is shown in all the abbreviations of proper names and of long -words in general which have been treated above (Ch IX § 7): here the -speaker has felt assured that his hearer has understood what or who he -is talking about, as soon as he has pronounced the initial syllable or -syllables, and therefore does not take the trouble to pronounce the -rest of the word. It has often been pointed out (see, e.g., Curtius K -72) that stem or root syllables are generally better preserved than -the rest of the word: the reason can only be that they have greater -importance for the understanding of the idea as a whole than other -syllables.[63] But it is especially when we come to examine stress -phenomena that we discover the full extent of this principle of value. - - -XIV.--§ 11. Stress Phenomena. - -Stress is generally believed to be dependent exclusively on the force -with which the air-current is expelled from the lungs, hence the name -of ‘expiratory accent’; but various observations and considerations -have led me to give another definition (LPh 7. 32, 1913): stress is -energy, intensive muscular activity not of one organ, but of _all -the speech organs at once_. To pronounce a ‘stressed’ syllable all -organs are exerted to the utmost. The muscles of the lungs are strongly -innervated; the movements of the vocal chords are stronger, leading on -the one hand in voiced sounds to a greater approximation of the vocal -chords, with less air escaping, but greater amplitude of vibrations and -also greater risings or fallings of the tone. In voiceless sounds, on -the other hand, the vocal chords are kept at greater distance (than in -unstressed syllables) and accordingly allow more air to escape. In the -upper organs stress is characterized by marked articulations of the -velum palati, of the tongue and of the lips. As a result of all this, -stressed syllables are loud, i.e. can be heard at great distance, and -distinct, i.e. easy to perceive in all their components. Unstressed -syllables, on the contrary, are produced with less exertion in every -way: in voiced sounds the distance between the vocal chords is greater, -which leads to the peculiar ‘voice of murmur’; but in voiceless -sounds the glottis is not opened very wide. In the upper organs we -see corresponding slack movements; thus the velum does not shut off -the nasal cavity very closely, and the tongue tends towards a neutral -position, in which it moves very little either up and down or backwards -and forwards. The lips also are moved with less energy, and the final -result is dull and indistinct sounds. Now, all this is of the greatest -importance in the history of languages. - -The psychological importance of various elements is the chief, though -not the only, factor that determines sentence stress (see, for -instance, the chapters on stress in my LPh xiv. and MEG v.). Now, it -is well known that sentence stress plays a most important rôle in the -historical development of any language; it has determined not only the -difference in vowel between [wɔz] and [wəz], both written _was_, or -between the demonstrative [ðæt] and the relative [ðət], both written -_that_, but also that between _one_ and _an_ or _a_, originally the -same word, and between Fr. _moi_ and _me_, _toi_ and _te_--one might -give innumerable other instances. Value also plays a not unimportant -rôle in determining which syllable among several in long words is -stressed most, and in some languages it has revolutionized the whole -stress system. This happened with old Gothonic, whence in modern -German, Scandinavian, and in the native elements of English we have the -prevalent stressing of the root syllable, i.e. of that syllable which -has the greatest psychological value, as in _'wishes_, _be'speak_, etc. - -Now, it is generally said that if double forms arise like _one_ and -_an_, _moi_ and _me_, the reason is that the sounds were found under -‘different phonetic conditions’ and therefore developed differently, -exactly as the difference between _an_ and _a_ or between Fr. _fol_ -and _fou_ is due to the same word being placed in one instance before -a word beginning with a vowel and in the other before a consonant, -that is to say, in different external conditions. But it won’t do to -identify the two things: in the latter case we really have something -external or mechanical, and here we may rightly use the expression -‘phonetic condition,’ but the difference between a strongly and a -weakly stressed form of the same word depends on something internal, on -the very soul of the word. Stress is not what the usual way of marking -it in writing and printing might lead us to think--something that hangs -outside or above the word--but is at least as important an element -of the word as the ‘speech sounds’ which go to make it up. Stress -alternation in a sentence cannot consequently be reckoned a ‘phonetic -condition’ of the same order as the initial sound of the next word. -If we say that the different treatment of the vowel seen in _one_ and -_an_ or _moi_ and _me_ is occasioned by varying degrees of stress, we -have ‘explained’ the secondary sound change only, but not the primary -change, which is that of stress itself, and that change is due to the -different significance of the word under varying circumstances, i.e. to -its varying value for the purposes of the exchange of ideas. Over and -above mechanical principles we have here and elsewhere psychological -principles, which no one can disregard with impunity. - - -XIV.--§ 12. Non-phonetic Changes. - -Considerations of ease play an important part in all departments -of language development. It is impossible to draw a sharp line -between phonetic and syntactic phenomena. We have what might be -termed prosiopesis when the speaker begins, or thinks he begins, to -articulate, but produces no audible sound till one or two syllables -after the beginning of what he intended to say. This phonetically is -‘aphesis,’ but in many cases leads to the omission of whole words; -this may become a regular speech habit, more particularly in the -case of certain set phrases, e.g. (Good) _morning_ / (Do you) _see_? -/ (Will) _that do?_ / (I shall) _see you again this afternoon_; Fr. -(na)_turellement_ / (Je ne me) _rappelle plus_, etc. - -On the other hand, we have aposiopesis if the speaker does not finish -his sentence, either because he hesitates which word to employ or -because he notices that the hearer has already caught his meaning. -Hence such syntactic shortenings as _at Brown’s_ (house, or shop, or -whatever it may be), which may then be extended to other places in -the sentence; the _grocer’s_ was closed / _St. Paul’s_ is very grand, -etc. Similar abbreviations due to the natural disinclination to use -more circumstantial expressions than are necessary to convey one’s -meaning are seen when, instead of _my straw hat_, one says simply _my -straw_, if it is clear to one’s hearers that one is talking of a hat; -thus _clay_ comes to be used for _clay pipe_, _return_ for _return -ticket_ (‘We’d better take returns’) _the Haymarket_ for _the Haymarket -Theatre_, etc. Sometimes these shortenings become so common as to be -scarcely any longer felt as such, e.g. _rifle_, _landau_, _bugle_, for -_rifle gun_, _landau carriage_, _bugle horn_ (further examples MEG -ii. 8. 9). In Maupassant (_Bel Ami_ 81) I find the following scrap of -conversation which illustrates the same principle in another domain: -“Voilà six mois que je suis _employé aux bureaux du chemin de fer du -Nord_.” “Mais comment diable n’as-tu pas trouvé mieux qu’une place -_d’employé au Nord_?”[64] - -The tendency to economize effort also manifests itself when the -general ending _-er_ is used instead of a more specific expression: -_sleeper_ for _sleeping-car_; _bedder_ at college for _bedmaker_; -_speecher_, _footer_, _brekker_ (Harrow) for _speech-day_, _football_, -_breakfast_, etc. Thus also when some noun or verb of a vague or -general meaning is used because one will not take the trouble to -think of the exact expression required, very often _thing_ (sometimes -extended _thingumbob_, cf. Dan. _tingest_, G. _dingsda_), Fr. _chose_, -_machin_ (even in place of a personal name); further, the verb _do_ or -_fix_ (this especially in America). In some cases this tendency may -permanently affect the meaning of a common noun which has to serve so -often instead of a specific name that at last it acquires a special -signification; thus, _corn_ in England = ‘wheat,’ in Ireland = ‘oats,’ -in America = ‘maize,’ _deer_, orig. ‘animal,’ Fr. _herbe_, now ‘grass,’ -etc. As many people, either from ignorance or from carelessness, are -far from being precise in thought and expression--they “Mean not, but -blunder round about a meaning”--words come to be applied in senses -unknown to former generations, and some of these senses may gradually -become fixed and established. In some cases the final result of such -want of precision may even be beneficial; thus English at first had no -means of expressing futurity in verbs. Then it became more and more -customary to say ‘he will come,’ which at first meant ‘he has the will -to come,’ to express his future coming apart from his volition--thus, -also, ‘it will rain,’ etc. Similarly ‘I shall go,’ which originally -meant ‘I am obliged to go,’ was used in a less accurate way, where no -obligation was thought of, and thus the language acquired something -which is at any rate a makeshift for a future tense of the verb. -But considerations of space prevent me from diving too deeply into -questions of semantic change. - -FOOTNOTES: - -[56] The uniformity in the speech of the whole Roman Empire during the -first centuries of our Christian era was kept up, among other things, -through the habit of removing soldiers and officials from one country -to the other. This ceased later, each district being left to shift more -or less for itself. - -[57] “Dass unsere ältesten vorfahren sich das sprechen erstaunlich -unbequem gemacht haben,” Delbrück, E 155. - -[58] Sometimes appearances may be deceptive: when [nr, mr] become [ndr, -mbr], it looks on the paper as if something had been added and as if -the transition therefore militated against the principle of ease: in -reality, the old and the new combinations require exactly the same -amount of muscular activity, and the change simply consists in want of -precision in the movement of the velum palati, which comes a fraction -of a second too soon. If anything, the new group is a trifle easier -than the old. See LPh 5. 6 for explanation and examples (E. _thunder_ -from _þunor_ sb., _þunrian_ vb.; _timber_, cf. Goth. _timrian_, G. -_zimmer_, etc.). - -[59] This is rendered most clear by my ‘analphabetic’ notation (α means -lips, β tip of tongue, δ soft palate, velum palati, and ε glottis; 0 -stands for closed position, 1 for approximation, 3 for open position); -the three sound combinations are thus analysed (cf. my _Lehrbuch der -Phonetik_): - - p | n p | m m | n - α 0 | 3 0 | 0 0 | 3 - β 3 | 0 3 | 3 3 | 0 - δ 0 | 3 0 | 3 3 | 3 - ε 3 | 1 3 | 1 1 | 1 - - -[60] The only clear cases of saving of time are those in which long -sounds are shortened, and even they must be looked upon as a saving of -effort. - -[61] In the reprint in _Samlede Afhandlinger_, ii. 417 (1920), a few -lines are added in which Thomsen fully accepts the explanation which I -gave as far back as 1886. - -[62] The above remarks are condensed from the argument in ChE 38 ff. -Note also what is said below (Ch. XIX § 13) on the loss of Lat. final -_-s_ in the Romanic languages after it had ceased to be necessary for -the grammatical understanding of sentences. - -[63] Against this it has been urged that Fr. _oncle_ has not preserved -the stem syllable of Lat. _avunculus_ particularly well. But this -objection is a little misleading. It is quite true that at the -time when the word was first framed the syllable _av-_ contained -the main idea and _-unculus_ was only added to impart an endearing -modification to that idea (‘dear little uncle’); but after some time -the semantic relation was altered; _avus_ itself passed out of use, -while _avunculus_ was handed down from generation to generation as a -ready-made whole, in which the ordinary speaker was totally unable to -suspect that _av-_ was the really significative stem. He consequently -treated it exactly as any other polysyllable of the same structure, -and _avun-_ (phonetically [awuŋ, auuŋ]) was naturally made into one -syllable. Nothing, of course, can be protected by a sense of its -significance unless it is still felt as significant. That hardly needs -saying. - -[64] Compare also the results of the same principle seen in writing. -In a letter a proper name or technical term when first introduced -is probably written in full and very distinctly, while afterwards -it is either written carelessly or indicated by a mere initial. Any -shorthand-writer knows how to utilize this principle systematically. - - - - -CHAPTER XV - -CAUSES OF CHANGE--_continued_ - - § 1. Emotional Exaggerations. § 2. Euphony. § 3. Organic Influences. - § 4. Lapses and Blendings. § 5. Latitude of Correctness. § - 6. Equidistant and Convergent Changes. § 7. Homophones. § 8. - Significative Sounds preserved. § 9. Divergent Changes and Analogy. § - 10. Extension of Sound Laws. § 11. Spreading of Sound Change. § 12. - Reaction. § 13. Sound Laws and Etymological Science. § 14. Conclusion. - - -XV.--§ 1. Emotional Exaggerations. - -In the preceding chapter we have dwelt at great length on those -changes which tend to render articulations easier and more convenient. -But, important as they are, these are not the only changes that -speech sounds undergo: there are other moods than that of ordinary -listless everyday conversation, and they may lead to modifications -of pronunciation which are different from and may even be in direct -opposition to those mentioned or hinted at above. Thus, anger or other -violent emotions may cause emphatic utterance, in which, e.g., stops -may be much more strongly aspirated than they are in usual quiet -parlance; even French, which has normally unaspirated (‘sharp’) [t] -and [k], under such circumstances may aspirate them strongly--‘_Mais -taisez-vous donc!_’ Military commands are characterized by peculiar -emphasizings, even in some cases distortions of sounds and words. -Pomposity and consequential airs are manifested in the treatment of -speech sounds as well as in other gestures. Irony, scoffing, banter, -amiable chaffing--each different mood or temper leaves its traces on -enunciation. Actors and orators will often use stronger articulations -than are strictly necessary to avoid those misunderstandings or -that unintelligibility which may ensue from slipshod or indistinct -pronunciation.[65] In short, anyone who will take careful note of the -way in which people do really talk will find in the most everyday -conversation as well as on more solemn occasions the greatest -variety of such modifications and deviations from what might be -termed ‘normal’ pronunciation; these, however, pass unnoticed under -ordinary circumstances, when the attention is directed exclusively -to the contents and general purport of the spoken words. A vowel or -a consonant will be made a trifle shorter or longer than usual, the -lips will open a little too much, an [e] will approach [æ] or [i], -the off-glide after a final [t] will sound nearly as [s], the closure -of a [d] will be made so loosely that a little air will escape and -the sound therefore will be approximately a [ð] or a weak fricative -point [r], etc. Most of these modifications are so small that they -cannot be represented by letters, even by those of a very exact -phonetic alphabet, but they exist all the same, and are by no means -insignificant to those who want to understand the real essence of -speech and of linguistic change, for life is built up of such minutiæ. -The great majority of such alterations are of course made quite -unconsciously, but by the side of these we must recognize that there -are some individuals who more or less consciously affect a certain mode -of enunciation, either from artistic motives, because they think it -beautiful, or simply to ‘show off’--and sometimes such pronunciations -may set the fashion and be widely imitated (cf. below, p. 292). - -Tender emotions may lead to certain lengthenings of sounds. The -intensifying effect of lengthening was noticed by A. Gill, Milton’s -teacher, in 1621, see Jiriczek’s reprint, p. 48: “Atque vt Hebræi, -ad ampliorem vocis alicuius significationem, syllabas adaugent [cf. -here below, Ch. XX § 9]; sic nos syllabarum tempora: vt, _grët_ [the -diæresis denotes vowel-length] magnus, _grëet_ ingens; _monstrus_ -prodigiosum, _mönstrus_ valde prodigiosum, _möönstrus_ prodigiosum -adeo vt hominem stupidet.” Cf. also the lengthening in the exclamation -_God!_, by novelists sometimes written _Gawd_ or _Gord_. But it is -curious that the same emotional lengthening will sometimes affect -a consonant (or first part of a diphthong) in a position in which -otherwise we always have a short quantity; thus, Danish clergymen, when -speaking with unction, will lengthen the [l] of _glæde_ ‘joy,’ which is -ridiculed by comic writers through the unphonetic spelling _ge-læde_; -and in the same way I find in Kipling (_Stalky_ 119): “We’ll make -it a _be-autiful_ house,” and in O. Henry (_Roads of Destiny_ 133): -“A regular Paradise Lost for elegance of scenery and _be-yooty_ of -geography.” I suppose that the spellings _ber-luddy_ and _bee-luddy_, -which I find in recent novels, are meant to indicate the pronunciation -[bl·-ʌdi], thus the exact counterpart of the Danish example. An -unstressed vowel before the stressed syllable is similarly lengthened -in “Dee-lightful couple!” (Shaw, _Doctor’s Dilemma_ 41); American girl -students will often say ['di·liʃ] for _delicious_. - - -XV.--§ 2. Euphony. - -It was not uncommon in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries to -ascribe phonetic changes to a desire for euphony, a view which is -represented in Bopp’s earliest works. But as early as 1821 Bredsdorff -says that “people will always find that euphonious which they are -accustomed to hear: considerations of euphony consequently will not -cause changes in a language, but rather make for keeping it unchanged. -Those changes which are generally supposed to be based on euphony are -due chiefly to convenience, in some instances to care of distinctness.” -This is quite true, but scarcely the whole truth. Euphony depends -not only on custom, but even more on ease of articulation and on -ease of perception: what requires intricate or difficult movements -of the organs of speech will always be felt as cacophonous, and so -will anything that is indistinct or blurred. But nations, as well as -individuals, have an artistic feeling for these things in different -degrees, and that may influence the phonetic character of a language, -though perhaps chiefly in its broad features, while it may be difficult -to point out any particular details in phonological history which have -been thus worked upon. There can be no doubt that the artistic feeling -is much more developed in the French than in the English nation, and -we find in French fewer obscure vowels and more clearly articulated -consonants than in English (cf. also my remarks on French accent, GS § -28). - - -XV.--§ 3. Organic Influences. - -Some modifications of speech sounds are due to the fact that the -organs of speech are used for other purposes than that of speaking. -We all know the effect of someone trying to speak with his mouth full -of food, or with a cigar or a pipe hanging between his lips and to -some extent impeding their action. Various emotions are expressed by -facial movements which may interfere with the production of ordinary -speech sounds. A child that is crying speaks differently from one that -is smiling or laughing. A smile requires a retraction of the corners -of the mouth and a partial opening of the lips, and thus impedes -the formation of that lip-closure which is an essential part of the -ordinary [m]; hence most people when smiling will substitute the -labiodental _m_, which to the ear greatly resembles the bilabial [m]. -A smile will also often modify the front-round vowel [y] so as to make -it approach [i]. Sweet may be right in supposing that “the habit of -speaking with a constant smile or grin” is the reason for the Cockney -unrounding of the vowel in [nau] for _no_. Schuchardt (_Zs. f. rom. -Phil._ 5. 314) says that in Andalusian _quia!_ instead of _ca!_ the -lips, under the influence of a certain emotion, are drawn scoffingly -aside. Inversely, the rounding in _Josu!_ instead of _Jesu!_ is due -to wonder (ib.); and exactly in the same way we have the surprised or -pitying exclamation _jøses!_ from _Jesus_ in Danish. Compare also the -rounding in Dan. and G. [nø·] for [ne·, nɛ·] (_nej_, _nein_). Lundell -mentions that in Swedish a caressing _lilla vän_ often becomes _lylla -vön_, and I have often observed the same rounding in Dan. _min lille -ven_. Schuchardt also mentions an Italian [ʃ] instead of [s] under the -influence of pain or anger (_mi duole la teʃta_; _ti do uno ʃchiaffo_); -a Danish parallel is the frequent [ʃluð’ər] for _sludder_ ‘nonsense.’ -We are here verging on the subject of the symbolic value of speech -sounds, which will occupy us in a later chapter (XX). - -Observe, too, how people will pronounce under the influence of alcohol: -the tongue is not under control and is incapable of accurately forming -the closure necessary for [t], which therefore becomes [r], and -the thin rill necessary for [s], which therefore comes to resemble -[ʃ]; there is also a general tendency to run sounds and syllables -together.[66] - - -XV.--§ 4. Lapses and Blendings. - -All these deviations are due to influences from what is outside the -sphere of language as such. But we now come to something of the -greatest importance in the life of language, the fact, namely, that -deviations from the usual or normal pronunciation are very often due to -causes inside the language itself, either by lingering reminiscences -of what has just been spoken or by anticipation of something that the -speaker is just on the point of pronouncing. The process of speech is -a very complicated one, and while one thing is being said, the mind is -continually active in preparing what has to be said next, arranging the -ideas and fashioning the linguistic expression in all its details. Each -word is a succession of sounds, and for each of these a complicated -set of orders has to be issued from the brain to the various speech -organs. Sometimes these get mixed up, and a command is sent down to -one organ a moment too early or too late. The inclination to make -mistakes naturally increases with the number of identical or similar -sounds in close proximity. This is well known from those ‘jaw-breaking’ -tongue-tests with which people amuse themselves in all countries and of -which I need give only one typical specimen: - - She sells seashells on the seashore, - The shells she sells are seashells, I’m sure, - For if she sells seashells on the seashore, - Then I’m sure she sells seashore shells. - -If the mind is occupied with one sound while another is being -pronounced, and thus either runs in advance of or lags behind what -should be its immediate business, the linguistic result may be of -various kinds. The simplest case of influencing is assimilation of two -contiguous sounds, which we have already considered from a different -point of view. Next we have assimilative influence on a sound at a -distance, as when we lapse into _she shells_ instead of _sea shells_ -or _she sells_; such is Fr. _chercher_ for older _sercher_ (whence -E. _search_) from Lat. _circare_, Dan. and G. vulgar _ʃerʃant_ for -_sergeant_; a curious mixed case is the pronunciation of _transition_ -as [træn'siʒən]: the normal development is [træn'ziʃən], but the -voice-articulation of the two hissing sounds is reversed (possibly -under accessory influence from the numerous words in which we have -[træns] with [s], and from words ending in [iʒən], such as _vision_, -_division_). Further examples of such assimilation at a distance or -consonant-harmonization (_malmsey_ from _malvesie_, etc.) may be found -in my LPh 11. 7, where there are also examples of the corresponding -harmonizings of vowels: Fr. _camarade_, It. _uguale_, _Braganza_, from -_camerade_, _eguale_, _Brigantia_, etc. In Ugro-Finnic and Turkish this -harmony of vowels has been raised to a principle pervading the whole -structure of the language, as seen, e.g., most clearly in the varying -plural endings in Yakut _agalar_, _äsälär_, _ogolor_, _dörölör_, -‘fathers, bears, children, muzzles.’ - -What escapes at the wrong place and causes confusion may be a part of -the same word or of a following word; as examples of the latter case -may be given a few of the lapses recorded in Meringer and Mayer’s -_Versprechen und Verlesen_ (Stuttgart, 1895): instead of saying -_Lateinisches lehnwort_ Meringer said _Latenisches ..._ and then -corrected himself; _paster noster_ instead of _pater noster_; _wenn -das wesser ... wetter wieder besser ist_. This phenomenon is termed -in Danish _at bakke snagvendt_ (for _snakke bagvendt_) and in English -_Spoonerism_, from an Oxford don, W. A. Spooner, about whom many comic -lapses are related (“Don’t you ever feel a half-warmed fish” instead of -“half-formed wish”). - -The simplest and most frequently occurring cases in which the order -for a sound is issued too early or too late are those transpositions -of two sounds which the linguists term ‘metatheses.’ They occur most -frequently with _s_ in connexion with a stop (_wasp_, _waps_; _ask_, -_ax_) and with _r_ (chiefly, perhaps exclusively, the trilled form of -the sound) and a vowel (_third_, OE. _þridda_). A more complicated -instance is seen in Fr. _trésor_ for _tésor_, _thesaurum_. If the -mind does not realize how far the vocal organs have got, the result -may be the skipping of some sound or sounds; this is particularly -likely to happen when the same sound has to be repeated at some little -distance, and we then have the phenomenon termed ‘haplology,’ as -in _eighteen_, OE. _eahtatiene_, and in the frequent pronunciation -_probly_ for _probably_, Fr. _contrôle_, _idolatrie_ for _contrerôle_, -_idololatrie_, Lat. _stipendium_ for _stipipendium_, and numerous -similar instances in every language (LPh 11. 9). Sometimes a sound may -be skipped because the mind is confused through the fact that the same -sound has to be pronounced a little later; thus the old Gothonic word -for ‘bird’ (G. _vogel_, OE. _fugol_; E. _fowl_ with a modified meaning) -is derived from the verb _fly_, OE. _fleogan_, and originally had -some form like *_fluglo_ (OE. had an adj. _flugol_); in recent times -_flugelman_ (G. flügelmann) has become _fugleman_. It. has _Federigo_ -for _Frederigo_--thus the exactly opposite result of what has been -brought about in _trésor_ from the same kind of mental confusion. - -When words are often repeated in succession, sounds from one of them -will often creep into another, as is seen very often in numerals: the -nasal which was found in the old forms for 7, 9 and 10 and is still -seen in E. _seven_, _nine_, _ten_, has no place in the word for 8, and -accordingly we have in the ordinal ON. _sjaundi_, _átti_, _níundi_, -_tíundi_, but already in ON. we find _áttandi_ by the side of _átti_, -and in Dan. the present-day forms are _syvende_, _ottende_, _niende_, -_tiende_; in the same way OFr. had _sedme_, _uidme_, _noefme_, _disme_ -(which have all now disappeared with the exception of _dîme_ as a -substantive). In the names of the months we had the same formation of -a series in OFr.: _septembre_, _octembre_, _novembre_, _decembre_, -but learned influence has reinstated _octobre_. G. _elf_ for older -_eilf_ owes its vowel to the following _zwelf_; and as now the latter -has given way to _zwölf_ (the vowel being rounded in consequence of -the _w_) many dialects count _zehn_, _ölf_, _zwölf_. Similarly, it -seems to be due to their frequent occurrence in close contact with the -verbal forms in _-no_ that the Italian plural pronouns _egli_, _elle_ -are extended with that ending: _eglino amano_, _elleno dicono_. Diez -compares the curious Bavarian _wo-st bist_, _dem-st gehörst_, etc., -in which the personal ending of the verb is transferred to some other -word with which it has nothing to do (on this phenomenon see Herzog, -_Streitfragen d. roman. phil._ 48, Buergel Goodwin, _Umgangsspr. in -Südbayern_ 99). - -In speaking, the mind is occupied not only with the words one is -already pronouncing or knows that one is going to pronounce, but also -with the ideas which one has to express but for which one has not yet -chosen the linguistic form. In many cases two synonyms will rise to -the consciousness at the same time, and the hesitation between them -will often result in a compromise which contains the head of one and -the tail of another word. It is evident that this process of blending -is intimately related to those we have just been considering; see the -detailed treatment in Ch. XVI § 6. - -Syntactical blends are very frequent. Hesitation between _different -from_ and _other than_ will result in _different than_ or _another -from_, and similarly we occasionally find _another to_, _different -to_, _contrary than_, _contrary from_, _opposite from_, _anywhere -than_. After a clause introduced by _hardly_ or _scarcely_ the normal -conjunction is _when_, but sometimes we find _than_, because that is -regular after the synonymous _no sooner_. - - -XV.--§ 5. Latitude of Correctness. - -It is a natural consequence of the essence of human speech and the -way in which it is transmitted from generation to generation that we -have everywhere to recognize a certain latitude of correctness, alike -in the significations in which the words may be used, in syntax and -in pronunciation. The nearer a speaker keeps to the centre of what is -established or usual, the easier will it be to understand him. If he -is ‘eccentric’ on one point or another, the result may not always be -that he conveys no idea at all, or that he is misunderstood, but often -merely that he is understood with some little difficulty, or that his -hearers have a momentary feeling of something odd in his choice of -words, or expressions or pronunciation. In many cases, when someone has -overstepped the boundaries of what is established, his hearers do not -at once catch his meaning and have to gather it from the whole context -of what follows: not unfrequently the meaning of something you have -heard as an incomprehensible string of syllables will suddenly flash -upon you without your knowing how it has happened. Misunderstandings -are, of course, most liable to occur if words of different meaning, -which in themselves would give sense in the same collocation, are -similar in sound: in that case a trifling alteration of one sound, -which in other words would create no difficulty at all, may prove -pernicious. Now, what is the bearing of these considerations on the -question of sound changes? - -The latitude of correctness is very far from being the same in -different languages. Some sounds in each language move within narrow -boundaries, while others have a much larger field assigned to them; -each language is punctilious in some, but not in all points. Deviations -which in one language would be considered trifling, in another would -be intolerable perversions. In German, for instance, a wide margin is -allowed for the (local and individual) pronunciation of the diphthong -written _eu_ or _äu_ (in _eule_, _träume_): it may begin with [ɔ] or -[œ] or even [æ, a], and it may end in [i], or the corresponding rounded -vowel [y], or one of the mid front vowels, rounded or not, it does -not matter much; the diphthong is recognized or acknowledged in many -shapes, while the similar diphthong in English, as in _toy_, _voice_, -allows a far less range of variation (for other examples see LPh 16. -22). - -Now, it is very important to keep in mind that there is an intimate -connexion between phonetic latitude and the significations of words. If -there are in a language a great many pairs of words which are identical -in sound except for, say, the difference between [e·] and [i·] (or -between long and short [i], or between voiced [b] and voiceless [p], -or between a high and a low tone, etc.), then the speakers of that -language necessarily will make that distinction with great precision, -as otherwise too many misunderstandings would result. If, on the other -hand, no mistakes worth speaking of would ensue, there is not the -same inducement to be careful. In English, and to a somewhat lesser -degree in French, it is easy to make up long lists of pairs of words -where the sole difference is between voice and voicelessness in the -final consonant (_cab_ _cap_, _bad_ _bat_, _frog_ _frock_, etc.); -hence final [b] and [p], [d] and [t], [g] and [k] are kept apart -conscientiously, while German possesses very few such pairs of words; -in German, consequently, the natural tendency to make final consonants -voiceless has not been checked, and all final stopped consonants have -now become voiceless. In initial and medial position, too, there are -very few examples in German of the same distinction (see the lists, -LPh 6. 78), and this circumstance makes us understand why Germans are -so apt to efface the difference between [b, d, g] and [p, t, k]. On -the other hand, the distinction between a long and a short vowel is -kept much more effectively in German than in French, because in German -ten or twenty times as many words would be liable to confusion through -pronouncing a long instead of a short vowel or vice versa. In French no -two words are kept apart by means of stress, as in English or German; -so the rule laid down in grammars that the stress falls on the final -syllable of the word is very frequently broken through for rhythmic and -other reasons. Other similar instances might easily be advanced. - - -XV.--§ 6. Equidistant and Convergent Changes. - -Phonetic shifts are of two kinds: the shifted sound may be identical -with one already found in the language, or it may be a new sound. -In the former, but not in the latter kind, fresh possibilities of -confusions and misunderstandings may arise. Now, in some cases one -sound (or series of sounds) marches into a position which has just -been abandoned by another sound (or series of sounds), which has -in its turn shifted into some other place. A notable instance is -the old Gothonic consonant shift: Aryan _b_, _d_, _g_ cannot have -become Gothonic _p_, _t_, _k_ till after primitive _p_, _t_, _k_ had -already become fricatives [f, þ, x (h)], for had the shift taken -place before, intolerable confusion would have reigned in all parts -of the vocabulary. Another instructive example is seen in the history -of English long vowels. Not till OE. long _a_ had been rounded into -something like [ɔ·] (OE. _stan_, ME. _stoon_, _stone_) could a new -long _a_ develop, chiefly through lengthening of an old short _a_ in -certain positions. Somewhat later we witness the great vowel-raising -through which the phonetic value of the long vowels (written all the -time in essentially the same way) has been constantly on the move and -yet the distance between them has been kept, so that no confusions -worth speaking of have ever occurred. If we here leave out of account -the rounded back vowels and speak only of front vowels, the shift may -be thus represented through typical examples (the first and the last -columns show the spelling, the others the sounds): - - Middle English. Elizabethan. Present English. - (1) _bite_ bi·tə beit bait _bite_ - (2) _bete_ be·tə bi·t bi·t _beet_ - (3) _bete_ bɛ·tə be·t bi·t _beat_ - (4) _abate_ a'ba·tə ə'bæ·t ə'beit _abate_ - -When the sound of (2) was raised into [i·], the sound of (1) had -already left that position and had been diphthongized, and when the -sound of (3) was raised from an open into a close _e_, (2) had already -become [i·]; (4) could not become [æ·] or [ɛ·] till (3) had become a -comparatively close _e_ sound. The four vowels, as it were, climbed -the ladder without ever reaching each other--a climbing which took -centuries and in each case implied intermediate steps not indicated in -our survey. No clashings could occur so long as each category kept its -distance from the sounds above and below, and thus we find that the -Elizabethans as scrupulously as Chaucer kept the four classes of words -apart in their rimes. But in the seventeenth century class (3) was -raised, and as no corresponding change had taken place with (2), the -two classes have now fallen together with the single sound [i·]. This -entails a certain number of homophones such as had not been created -through the preceding equidistant changes. - - -XV.--§ 7. Homophones. - -The reader here will naturally object that the fact of new homophones -arising through this vowel change goes against the theory that the -necessity of certain distinctions can keep in check the tendency -to phonetic changes. But homophones do not always imply frequent -misunderstandings: some homophones are more harmless than others. Now, -if we look at the list of the homophones created by this raising of -the close _e_ (MEG i. 11. 74), we shall soon discover that very few -mistakes of any consequence could arise through the obliteration of the -distinction between this vowel and the previously existing [i·]. For -substantives and verbal forms (like _bean_ and _been_, _beet_ _beat_, -_flea_ _flee_, _heel_ _heal_, _leek_ _leak_, _meat_ _meet_, _reed_ -_read_, _sea_ _see_, _seam_ _seem_, _steel_ _steal_), or substantives -and adjectives (like _deer_ _dear_, _leaf_ _lief_, _shear_ _sheer_, -_week_ _weak_) will generally be easily distinguished by their position -in the sentence; nor will a plural such as _feet_ be often mistaken for -the singular _feat_. Actual misunderstandings of any importance are -only imaginable when the two words belong to the same ‘part of speech,’ -but of such pairs we meet only few: _beach_ _beech_, _breach_ _breech_, -_mead_ _meed_, _peace_ _piece_, _peal_ _peel_, _quean_ _queen_, _seal_ -_ceil_, _wean_ _ween_, _wheal_ _wheel_. I think the judicious reader -will agree with me that confusions due to these words being pronounced -in the same way will be few and far between, and one understands that -they cannot have been powerful enough to prevent hundreds of other -words from having their sound changed. An effective prevention can only -be expected when the falling together in sound would seriously impair -the understanding of many sentences. - -It is, moreover, interesting to note how many of the words which were -made identical with others through this change were already rare at -the time or have at any rate become obsolete since: this is true of -_breech_, _lief_, _meed_, _mete_ (adj.), _quean_, _weal_, _wheal_, -_ween_ and perhaps a few others. Now, obsolescence of some words is -always found in connexion with such convergent sound changes. In some -cases the word had already become rare before the change in sound took -place, and then it is obvious that it cannot have offered serious -resistance to the change that was setting in. In other cases the dying -out of a word must be looked upon as a consequence of the sound change -which had actually taken place. Many scholars are now inclined to see -in phonetic coalescence one of the chief reasons why words fall into -disuse, see, e.g., Liebisch (PBB XXIII, 228, many German examples in O. -Weise, _Unsere Mutterspr._, 3d ed., 206) and Gilliéron, _La faillite de -l’étymologie phonétique_ (Neuveville, 1919--a book whose sensational -title is hardly justified by its contents). - -The drawbacks of homophones[67] are counteracted in various ways. Very -often a synonym steps forward, as when _lad_ or _boy_ is used in nearly -all English dialects to supplant _son_, which has become identical in -sound with _sun_ (cf. above p. 120, a childish instance). Very often -it becomes usual to avoid misunderstandings through some addition, as -when we say _the sole of her foot_, because _her sole_ might be taken -to mean _her soul_, or when the French say _un dé à coudre_ or _un dé -à jouer_ (cf. E. _minister of religion_ and _cabinet minister_, the -_right-hand_ corner, the _subject-matter_, where the same expedient -is used to obviate ambiguities arisen from other causes). Chinese, of -course, is the classical example of a language abounding in homophones -caused by convergent sound changes, and it is highly interesting -to study the various ways in which that language has remedied the -resulting drawbacks, see, e.g., B. Karlgren, _Ordet och pennan i -Mittens rike_ (Stockholm, 1918), p. 49 ff. But on the whole we must say -that the ways in which these phonetic inconveniences are counteracted -are the same as those in which speakers react against misunderstandings -arising from semantic or syntactic causes: as soon as they perceive -that their meaning is not apprehended they turn their phrases in a -different way, choosing some other expression for their thought, and by -this means language is gradually freed from ambiguity. - - -XV.--§ 8. Significative Sounds preserved. - -My contention that the significative side of language has in so far -exercised an influence on phonetic development that the possibility -of many misunderstandings may effectually check the coalescence of -two hitherto distinct sounds should not be identified with one of the -tenets of the older school (Curtius included) against which the ‘young -grammarians’ raised an emphatic protest, namely, that a tendency to -preserve significative sounds and syllables might produce exceptions -to the normal course of phonetic change. Delbrück and his friends may -be right in much of what they said against Curtius--for instance, -when he explained the retention of _i_ in some Greek optative forms -through a consciousness of the _original_ meaning of this suffix; but -their denial was in its way just as exaggerated as his affirmation. It -cannot justly be urged against the influence of signification that a -preservation of a sound on that account would only be imaginable on the -supposition that the speaker was conscious of a threatened sound change -and wanted to avoid it. One need not suppose a speaker to be on his -guard against a ‘sound law’: the only thing required is that he should -feel, or be made to feel, that he is not understood when he speaks -indistinctly; if on that account he has to repeat his words he will -naturally be careful to pronounce the sound he has skipped or slurred, -and may even be tempted to exaggerate it a little. - -There do not seem to be many quite unimpeachable examples of words -which have received exceptional phonetic treatment to obviate -misunderstandings arising from homophony; other explanations (analogy -from other forms of the same word, etc.) can generally be alleged more -or less plausibly. But this does seem to be the easiest explanation -of the fact that the E. preposition _on_ has always the full vowel -[ɔ], though in nine cases out of ten it is weakly stressed and though -all the other analogous prepositions (_to_, _for_, _of_, _at_) in the -corresponding weak positions in sentences are generally pronounced -with the ‘neutral’ vowel [ə]. But if _on_ were similarly pronounced, -ambiguity would very often result from its phonetic identity with the -weak forms of the extremely frequent little words _an_ (the indefinite -article) and _and_ (possibly also _in_), not to mention the great -number of [ən]s in words like _drunken_, _shaken_, _deepen_, etc., -where the forms without _-en_ also exist. With the preposition _upon_ -the same considerations do not hold good, hence the frequency of the -pronunciation [əpən] in weak position. Considerations of clearness -have also led to the disuse of the formerly frequent form _o_ (_o’_) -which was the ‘natural’ development of each of the two prepositions -_on_ and _of_. The form written _a_ survives only in some fossilized -combinations like _ashore_; in several others it has now disappeared -(_set the clock going_, formerly _a-going_, etc.). - -Sometimes, when all ordinary words are affected by a certain sound -change, some words prove refractory because in their case the old sound -is found to be more expressive than the new one. When the long E. [i·] -was diphthongized into [ai], the words _pipe_ and _whine_ ceased to be -good echoisms, but some dialects have _peep_ ‘complain,’ which keeps -the old sound of the former, and the Irish say _wheen_ (Joyce, _English -as we speak it in Ireland_, 103). In _squeeze_ the [i·] sound has been -retained as more expressive--the earlier form was _squize_; and the -same is the case with some words meaning ‘to look narrowly’: _peer_, -_peek_, _keek_, earlier _pire_, _pike_, _kike_ (cf. Dan. _pippe_, -_kikke_, _kige_, G. _kieken_).[68] In the same way, when the old [a·] -was changed into [ɛ·, ei], the word _gape_ ceased to be expressive (as -it is still in Dan. _gabe_), but in popular speech the tendency to -raise the vowel was resisted, and the old sound [ga·p] persisted, spelt -_garp_ as a London form in 1817 (Ellis, EEP v. 228) and still common in -many dialects (see _gaup_, _garp_ in EDD); Professor Hempl told me that -[ga·p] was also a common pronunciation in America. In the chapter on -Sound Symbolism (XX) we shall see some other instances of exceptional -phonetic treatment of symbolic words (especially _tiny_, _teeny_, -_little_, _cuckoo_). - - -XV.--§ 9. Divergent Changes and Analogy. - -Besides equidistant and convergent sound changes we have divergent -changes, through which sounds at one time identical have separated -themselves later. This is a mere consequence of the fact that it is -rare for a sound to be changed equally in all positions in which it -occurs. On the contrary, one must admit that the vast majority of -sound changes are conditioned by some such circumstance as influence -of neighbouring sounds, position as initial, medial or final (often -with subdivisions, as position between vowels, etc.), place in a -strongly or weakly stressed syllable, and so forth. One may take as -examples some familiar instances from French: Latin _c_ (pronounced -[k]), is variously treated before _o_ (_corpus_ > _corps_), _a_ -(_canem_ > _chien_), and _e_ (_centum_ > _cent_); in _amicum_ > _ami_ -it has totally disappeared. Lat. _a_ becomes _e_ in a stressed open -syllable (_natum_ > _né_), except before a nasal (_amat_ > _aime_); but -after _c_ we have a different treatment (_canem_ > _chien_), and in -a close syllable it is kept (_arborem_ > _arbre_); in weak syllables -it is kept initially (_amorem_ > _amour_), but becomes [ə] (spelt -_e_) finally (_bona_ > _bonne_). This enumeration of the chief rules -will serve to show the far-reaching differentiation which in this -way may take place among words closely related as parts of the same -paradigm or family of words; thus, for Lat. _amo_, _amas_, _amat_, -_amamus_, _amatis_, _amant_ we get OFr. _aim_, _aimes_, _aime_, -_amons_, _amez_, _aiment_, until the discrepancy is removed through -analogy, and we get the regular modern forms _aime_, _aimes_, _aime_, -_aimons_, _aimez_, _aiment_. The levelling tendency, however, is not -strong enough to affect the initial _a_ in _amour_ and _amant_, which -are felt as less closely connected with the verbal forms. What were -at first only small differences may in course of time become greater -through subsequent changes, as when the difference between _feel_ and -_felt_, _keep_ and _kept_, etc., which was originally one of length -only, became one of vowel quality as well, through the raising of -long [e·] to [i·], while short [e] was not raised. And thus in many -other cases. Different nations differ greatly in the degree in which -they permit differentiation of cognate words; most nations resent any -differentiation in initial sounds, while the Kelts have no objection -to ‘the same word’ having as many as four different beginnings (for -instance _t-_, _d-_, _n-_, _nh-_) according to circumstances. In -Icelandic the word for ‘other, second’ has for centuries in different -cases assumed such different forms as _annarr_, _önnur_, _öðrum_, -_aðrir_, forms which in the other Scandinavian languages have been -levelled down. - -It is a natural consequence of the manner in which phonology is usually -investigated and represented in manuals of historical grammar--which -start with some old stage and follow the various changes of each sound -in later stages--that these divergent changes have attracted nearly -the sole attention of scholars; this has led to the prevalent idea -that sound laws and analogy are the two opposed principles in the life -of languages, the former tending always to destroy regularity and -harmony, and the latter reconstructing what would without it be chaos -and confusion.[69] - -This view, however, is too rigorous and does not take into account -the manysidedness of linguistic life. It is not every irregularity -that is due to the operation of phonetic laws, as we have in all -languages many survivals of the confused manner in which ideas were -arranged and expressed in the mind of primitive man. On the other hand, -there are many phonetic changes which do not increase the number of -existing irregularities, but make for regularity and a simpler system -through abolishing phonetic distinctions which had no semantic or -functional value; such are, for instance, those convergent changes -of unstressed vowels which have simplified the English flexional -system (Ch. XIV § 10 above). And if we were in the habit of looking at -linguistic change from the other end, tracing present sounds back to -former sounds instead of beginning with antiquity, we should see that -convergent changes are just as frequent as divergent ones. Indeed, many -changes may be counted under both heads; an _a_, which is dissociated -from other _a_’s through becoming _e_, is identified with and from -henceforth shares the destiny of other _e_’s, etc. - - -XV.--§ 10. Extension of Sound Laws. - -If a phonetic change has given to some words two forms without any -difference in signification, the same alternation may be extended to -other cases in which the sound in question has a different origin -(‘phonetic analogy’). An undoubted instance is the unhistoric _r_ -in recent English. When the consonantal [r] was dropped finally and -before a consonant while it was retained before a vowel, and words -like _better_, _here_ thus came to have two forms [betə, hiə] and -[betər (ɔf), hiər (ən ðɛ·ə)] _better off_, _here and there_, the same -alternation was transferred to words like _idea_, _drama_ [ai'diə, -dra·mə], so that the sound [r] is now very frequently inserted before a -word beginning with a vowel: _I’d no idea_-r-_of this_, _a drama_-r-_of -Ibsen_ (many references MEG i. 13. 42). In French final _t_ and _s_ -have become mute, but are retained before a vowel: _il est_ [ɛ] _venu_, -_il est_ [ɛt] _arrivé_; _les_ [le] _femmes_, _les_ [lez] _hommes_; -and now vulgar speakers will insert [t] or [z] in the wrong place -between vowels: _pa-t assez_, _j’allai-t écrire_, _avant-z-hier_, -_moi-z-aussi_; this is called ‘cuir’ or ‘velours.’ - -In course of time a ‘phonetic law’ may undergo a kind of metamorphosis, -being extended to a greater and greater number of combinations. As -regards recent times we are sometimes able to trace such a gradual -development. A case in point is the dropping of [j] in [ju·] after -certain consonants in English (see MEG i. 13, 7). It began with _r_ -as in _true_, _rude_; next came _l_ when preceded by a consonant, as -in _blue_, _clue_; in these cases [j] is never heard. But after _l_ -not preceded by another consonant there is a good deal of vacillation, -thus in _Lucy_, _absolute_; after [s, z] as in _Susan_, _resume_ -there is a strong tendency to suppress [j], though this pronunciation -has not yet prevailed,[70] and after [t, d, n], as in _tune_, _due_, -_new_, the suppression is in Britain only found in vulgar speakers, -while in some parts of the United States it is heard from educated -speakers as well. In the speech of these the sound law may be said -to attack any [ju·] after any point consonant, while it will have -to be formulated in various less comprehensive terms for British -speakers belonging to older or younger generations. It is extremely -difficult, not to say impossible, to reconcile such occurrences with -the orthodox ‘young grammarian’ theory of sound changes being due to a -shifting of the organic feeling or motor sensation (verschiebung des -bewegungsgefühls) which is supposed to have necessarily taken place -wherever the same sound was under the same phonetic conditions. For -what are here the same phonetic conditions? The position after _r_, -after _l_ combinations, after _l_ even when standing alone, after all -point consonants? Each generation of English speakers will give a -different answer to this question. Now, it is highly probable that many -of the comprehensive prehistoric sound changes, of which we see only -the final result, while possible intermediate stages evade our inquiry, -have begun in the same modest way as the transition from [ju·] to [u·] -in English: with regard to them we are in exactly the same position -as a man who had heard only such speakers as say consistently [tru·, -ru·d, blu·, lu·si, su·zn, ri'zu·m, tu·n, du·, nu·] and who would then -naturally suppose that [j] in the combination [ju·] had been dropped -all at once after any point consonant. - - -XV.--§ 11. Spreading of Sound Change. - -Sound laws (to retain provisionally that firmly established term) -have by some linguists, who rightly reject the comparison with -natural laws (e.g. Meringer), been compared rather with the ‘laws’ of -fashion in dress. But I think it is important to make a distinction -here: the comparison with fashions throws no light whatever on the -question how sound changes _originate_--it can tell us nothing about -the first impulse to drop [j] in certain positions before [u·]; but -the comparison is valid when we come to consider the question how -such a change when first begun in one individual _spreads to other -individuals_. While the former question has been dealt with at some -length in the preceding investigation, it now remains for us to say -something about the latter. The spreading of phonetic change, as -of any other linguistic change, is due to imitation, conscious and -unconscious, of the speech habits of other people. We have already -met with imitation in the chapters dealing with the child and with -the influence exerted by foreign languages. But man is apt to imitate -throughout the whole of his life, and this statement applies to his -language as much as to his other habits. What he imitates, in this as -in other fields, is not always the best; a real valuation of what would -be linguistically good or preferable does not of course enter the head -of the ‘man in the street.’ But he may imitate what he thinks pretty, -or funny, and especially what he thinks characteristic of those people -whom for some reason or other he looks up to. Imitation is essentially -a social phenomenon, and if people do not always imitate the best (the -best thing, the best pronunciation), they will generally imitate ‘their -betters,’ i.e. those that are superior to them--in rank, in social -position, in wealth, in everything that is thought enviable. What -constitutes this superiority cannot be stated once for all; it varies -according to surroundings, age, etc. A schoolboy may feel tempted to -imitate a rough, swaggering boy a year or two older than himself rather -than his teachers or parents, and in later life he may find other -people worthy of imitation, according to his occupation or profession -or individual taste. But when he does imitate he is apt to imitate -everything, even sometimes things that are not worth imitating. In this -way Percy, in _Henry IV, Second Part_, II. 3. 24-- - - was indeed the glasse - Wherein the noble youth did dresse themselues. - He had no legges, that practic’d not his gate, - And _speaking thicke[71] (which Nature made his blemish) - Became the accents of the valiant. - For those that could speake low and tardily, - Would turne their owne perfection to abusee, - To seeme like him. So that in speech_, in gate ... - He was the marke, and glasse, coppy, and booke, - That fashion’d others. - -The spreading of a new pronunciation through imitation must necessarily -take some time, though the process may in some instances be fairly -rapid. In some historical instances we are able to see how a new -sound, taking its rise in some particular part of a country, spreads -gradually like a wave, until finally it has pervaded the whole of a -linguistic area. It cannot become universal all at once; but it is -evident that the more natural a new mode of pronunciation seems to -members of a particular speech community, the more readily will it -be accepted and the more rapid will be its diffusion. Very often, -both when the new pronunciation is easier and when there are special -psychological inducements operating in one definite direction, the new -form may originate independently in different individuals, and that -of course will facilitate its acceptation by others. But as a rule a -new pronunciation does not become general except after many attempts: -it may have arisen many times and have died out again, until finally -it finds a fertile soil in which to take firm root. It may not be -superfluous to utter a warning against a fallacy which is found now and -then in linguistic works: when some Danish or English document, say, of -the fifteenth century contains a spelling indicative of a pronunciation -which we should call ‘modern,’ it is hastily concluded that people in -those days spoke in that respect exactly as they do now, whatever the -usual spelling and the testimony of much later grammarians may indicate -to the contrary. But this is far from certain. The more isolated such a -spelling is, the greater is the probability that it shows nothing but -an individual or even momentary deviation from what was then the common -pronunciation--the first swallow ‘who found with horror that he’d not -brought spring.’ - - -XV.--§ 12. Reaction. - -Even those who have no linguistic training will have some apperception -of sounds as such, and will notice regular correspondences, and even -occasionally exaggerate them, thereby producing those ‘hypercorrect’ -forms which are of specially frequent occurrence when dialect speakers -try to use the ‘received standard’ of their country. The psychology -of this process is well brought out by B. I. Wheeler, who relates -(_Transact. Am. Philol. Ass._ 32. 14, 1901; I change his symbols into -my own phonetic notation): “In my own native dialect I pronounced _new_ -as [nu·]. I have found myself in later years inclined to say [nju·], -especially when speaking carefully and particularly in public; so also -[tju·zdi] _Tuesday_. There has developed itself in connexion with these -and other words a dual sound-image [u·:ju·] of such validity that -whenever [u·] is to be formed after a dental [alveolar] explosive or -nasal, the alternative [ju·] is likely to present itself and create -the effect of momentary uncertainty. Less frequently than in _new_, -_Tuesday_, the [j] intrudes itself in _tune_, _duty_, _due_, _dew_, -_tumour_, _tube_, _tutor_, etc.; but under special provocation I am -liable to use it in any of these, and have even caught myself, when -in a mood of uttermost precision, passing beyond the bounds of the -imitative adoption of the new sound into self-annexed territory, and -creating [dju·] _do_ and [tju·] _two_.” One more instance from America -may be given: “In the dialect of Missouri and the neighbouring States, -final _a_ in such words as _America_, _Arizona_, _Nevada_ becomes -_y_--_Americy_, _Arizony_, _Nevady_. All educated people in that region -carefully correct this vulgarism out of their speech; and many of -them carry the correction too far and say _Missoura_, _praira_, etc.” -(Sturtevant, LCH 79). Similarly, many Irish people, noticing that -refined English has [i·] in many cases where they have [e·] (_tea_, -_sea_, _please_, etc.) adopt [i·] in these words, and transfer it -erroneously to words like _great_, _pear_, _bear_, etc. (MEG i. 11. -73); they may also, when correcting their own _ar_ into _er_, in such -words as _learn_, go too far and speak of _derning_ a stocking (Joyce, -_English as we speak it in Ireland_, 93). Cf. from England such forms -as _ruing_, _certing_, for _ruin_, _certain_. - -From Germany I may mention that Low German speakers desiring to talk -High German are apt to say _zeller_ instead of _teller_, because High -German in many words has _z_ for their _t_ (_zahl_, _zahm_, etc.), and -that those who in their native speech have _j_ for _g_ (Berlin, etc., -_eine jute jebratene jans ist eine jute jabe jottes_) will sometimes, -when trying to talk correctly, say _getzt_, _gahr_ for _jetzt_, -_jahr_.[72] - -It will be easily seen that such hypercorrect forms are closely related -to those ‘spelling pronunciations’ which become frequent when there is -much reading of a language whose spelling is not accurately phonetic; -the nineteenth century saw a great number of them, and their number is -likely to increase in this century--especially among social upstarts, -who are always fond of showing off their new-gained superiority in this -and similar ways. But they need not detain us here, as being really -foreign to our subject, the natural development of speech sounds. I -only wish to point out that many forms which are apparently due to -influence from spelling may not have their origin _exclusively_ from -that source, but may be genuine archaic forms that have been preserved -through purely oral tradition by the side of more worn-down forms of -the same word. For it must be admitted that two or three forms of the -same word may coexist and be used according to the more or less solemn -style of utterance employed. Even among savages, who are unacquainted -with the art of writing, we are told that archaic forms of speech -are often kept up and remembered as parts of old songs only, or as -belonging to solemn rites, cults, etc. - - -XV.--§ 13. Sound Laws and Etymological Science. - -In this and the preceding chapter I have tried to pass in review the -various circumstances which make for changes in the phonetic structure -of languages. My treatment is far from exhaustive and may have other -defects; but I want to point out the fact that nowhere have I found -any reason to accept the theory that sound changes always take place -according to rigorous or ‘blind’ laws admitting no exceptions. On the -contrary, I have found many indications that complete consistency is -no more to be expected from human beings in pronunciation than in any -other sphere. - -It is very often said that if sound laws admitted of exceptions there -would be no possibility of a science of etymology. Thus Curtius wrote -as early as 1858 (as quoted by Oertel 259): “If the history of language -really showed such sporadic aberrations, such pathological, wholly -irrational phonetic malformations, we should have to give up all -etymologizing. For only that which is governed by law and reducible -to a coherent system can form the object of scientific investigation; -whatever is due to chance may at best be guessed at, but will never -yield to scientific inference.” In his practice, however, Curtius -was not so strict as his followers. Leskien, one of the recognized -leaders of the ‘young grammarians,’ says (_Deklination_, xxvii): -“If exceptions are admitted at will (abweichungen), it amounts to -declaring that the object of examination, language, is inaccessible to -scientific comprehension.” Since then, it has been repeated over and -over again that without strict adherence to phonetic laws etymological -science is a sheer impossibility, and sometimes those who have doubted -the existence of strict laws in phonology have been looked upon -as obscurantists adverse to a scientific treatment of language in -general, although, of course, they did not believe that everything is -left to chance or that they were free to put forward purely arbitrary -exceptions. - -There are, however, many instances in which it is hardly possible -to deny etymological connexion, though ‘the phonetic laws are not -observed.’ Is not Gothic _azgo_ with its voiced consonants evidently -‘the same word’ as E. _ash_, G. _asche_, Dan. _aske_, with their -voiceless consonants? G. _neffe_ with short vowel must nevertheless be -identical with MHG. _neve_, OHG. _nevo_; E. _pebble_ with OE. _papol_; -_rescue_ with ME. _rescowe_; _flagon_ with Fr. _flacon_, though each -of these words contains deviations from what we find in other cases. -It is hard to keep apart two similar forms for ‘heart,’ one with -initial _gh_ in Skt. _hrd_ and Av. _zered-_, and another with initial -_k_ in Gr. _kardía_, _kēr_, Lat. _cor_, Goth. _haírto_, etc. The Greek -ordinals _hébdomos_, _ógdoos_ have voiced consonants over against the -voiceless combinations in _heptá_, _oktṓ_, and yet cannot be separated -from them. All this goes to show (and many more cases might be -instanced) that there are in every language words so similar in sound -and signification that they cannot be separated, though they break the -‘sound laws’: in such cases, where etymologies are too palpable, even -the strictest scholars momentarily forget their strictness, maybe with -great reluctance and in the secret hope that some day the reason for -the deviation may be discovered and the principle thus be maintained. - -Instead of exacting strict adherence to sound laws everywhere as -the basis of any etymologizing, it seems therefore to be in better -agreement with common sense to say: whenever an etymology is not -palpably evident, whenever there is some difficulty because the -compared words are either too remote in sound or in sense or belong to -distant periods of the same language or to remotely related languages, -your etymology cannot be reckoned as _proved_ unless you have shown -by other strictly parallel cases that the sound in question has been -treated in exactly the same way in the same language. This, of course, -applies more to old than to modern periods, and we thus see that while -in living languages accessible to direct observation we do not find -sound laws observed without exceptions, and though we must suppose -that, on account of the essential similarity of human psychology, -conditions have been the same at all periods, it is not unreasonable, -in giving etymologies for words from old periods, to act as if sound -changes followed strict laws admitting no exceptions; this is simply -a matter of proof, and really amounts to this: where the matter is -doubtful, we must require a great degree of probability in that field -which allows of the simplest and most easily controllable formulas, -namely the phonetic field. For here we have comparatively definite -phenomena and are consequently able with relative ease to compute the -possibilities of change, while this is infinitely more difficult in the -field of significations. The possibilities of semantic change are so -manifold that the only thing generally required when the change is not -obvious is to show some kind of parallel change, which need not even -have taken place in the same language or group of languages, while with -regard to sounds the corresponding changes must have occurred in the -same language and at the same period in order for the evidence to be -sufficient to establish the etymology in question. - -It would perhaps be best if linguists entirely gave up the habit of -speaking about phonetic ‘laws,’ and instead used some such expression -as phonetic formulas or rules. But if we are to keep the word ‘law,’ -we may with some justice think of the use of that word in juridical -parlance. When we read such phrases as: this assumption is against -phonetic laws, or, phonetic laws do not allow us this or that -etymology, or, the writer of some book under review is guilty of many -transgressions of established phonetic laws, etc., such expressions -cannot help suggesting the idea that phonetic laws resemble paragraphs -of some criminal law. We may formulate the principle in something like -the following way: If in the etymologies you propose you do not observe -these rules, if, for instance, you venture to make Gr. _kaléo_ = E. -_call_ in spite of the fact that Gr. _k_ in other words corresponds -to E. _h_, then you incur the severest punishment of science, your -etymology is rejected, and you yourself are put outside the pale of -serious students. - -In another respect phonetic laws may be compared with what we might -call a Darwinian law in zoology, such as this: the fore-limbs of the -common ancestor of mammals have developed into flippers in whales and -into hands in apes and men. The similarity between both kinds of laws -is not inconsiderable. A microscopic examination of whales, even an -exact investigation by means of the eye alone, will reveal innumerable -little deviations: no two flippers are exactly alike. And in the same -way no two persons speak in exactly the same way. But the fact that -we cannot in detail account for each of these _nuances_ should not -make us doubt that they are developed in a perfectly natural way, in -accordance with the great law of causality, nor should we despair of -the possibility of scientific treatment, even if some of the flippers -and some of the sounds are not exactly what we should expect. A law of -fore-limb development can only be deduced through such observation of -many flippers as will single out what is typical of whales’ flippers, -and then a comparison with the typical fore-limbs of their ancestors or -of their congeners among existing mammals. And in the same way we do -not find laws of phonetic development until, after leaving what can be -examined as it were microscopically, we go on telescopically to examine -languages which are far removed from each other in space or time: then -small differences disappear, and we discover nothing but the great -lines of a regular evolution which is the outcome of an infinite number -of small movements in many different directions. - - -XV.--§ 14. Conclusion. - -It has been one of the leading thoughts in the two chapters devoted -to the causes of linguistic change that phonetic changes, to be fully -understood, should not be isolated from other changes, for in actual -linguistic life we witness a constant interplay of sound and sense. -Not only should each sound change be always as far as possible seen -in connexion with other sound changes going on in the same period in -the same language (as in the great vowel-raising in English), but -the effects on the speech material as a whole should in each case be -investigated, so as to show what homophones (if any) were produced, and -what danger they entailed to the understanding of natural sentences. -Sounds should never be isolated from the words in which they occur, nor -words from sentences. No hard-and-fast boundary can be drawn between -phonetic and non-phonetic changes. The psychological motives for both -kinds of changes are the same in many cases, and the way in which both -kinds spread through imitation is absolutely identical: what was said -on this subject above (§ 11) applies without the least qualification -to any linguistic change, whether in sounds, in grammatical forms, in -syntax, in the signification of words, or in the adoption of new words -and dropping of old ones. - -We shall here finally very briefly consider something which plays a -certain part in the development of language, but which has not been -adequately dealt with in what precedes, namely, the desire to play -with language. We have already met with the effects of playfulness in -one of the chapters devoted to children (p. 148): here we shall see -that the same tendency is also powerful in the language of grown-up -people, though most among young people. There is a certain exuberance -which will not rest contented with traditional expressions, but -finds amusement in the creation and propagation of new words and in -attaching new meanings to old words: this is the exact opposite of that -linguistic poverty which we found was at the bottom of such minimum -languages as Pidgin-English. We find it in the wealth of pet-names -which lovers have for each other and mothers for their children, in the -nicknames of schoolboys and of ‘pals’ of later life, as well as in the -perversions of ordinary words which at times become the fashion among -small sets of people who are constantly thrown together and have plenty -of spare time; cf. also the ‘little language’ of Swift and Stella. -Most of these forms of speech have a narrow range and have only an -ephemeral existence, but in the world of _slang_ the same tendencies -are constantly at work. - -Slang words are often confused with vulgarisms, though the two things -are really different. The vulgar tongue is a class dialect, and a -vulgarism is an element of the normal speech of low-class people, -just as ordinary dialect words are elements of the natural speech of -peasants in one particular district; slang words, on the other hand, -are words used in conscious contrast to the natural or normal speech: -they can be found in all classes of society in certain moods, and -on certain occasions when a speaker wants to avoid the natural or -normal word because he thinks it too flat or uninteresting and wants -to achieve a different effect by breaking loose from the ordinary -expression. A vulgarism is what will present itself at once to the -mind of a person belonging to one particular class; a slang word is -something that is wilfully substituted for the first word that will -present itself. The distinction will perhaps appear most clearly in the -case of grammar: if a man says _them boys_ instead of _those boys_, -or _knowed_ instead of _knew_, these are the normal forms of his -language, and he knows no better, but the educated man looks down upon -these forms as vulgar. Inversely, an educated man may amuse himself -now and then by using forms which he perfectly well knows are not the -received forms, thus _wunk_ from _wink_, _collode_ from _collide_, -_praught_ from _preach_ (on the analogy of _taught_); “We handshook and -_candlestuck_, as somebody said, and went to bed” (H. James). But, of -course, slang is more productive in the lexical than in the grammatical -portion of language. And there is something that makes it difficult in -practice always to keep slang and vulgar speech apart, namely, that -when a person wants to leave the beaten path of normal language he is -not always particular as to the source whence he takes his unusual -words, and he may therefore sometimes take a vulgar word and raise it -to the dignity of a slang word. - -A slang word is at first individual, but may through imitation become -fashionable in certain sets; after some time it may either be accepted -by everybody as part of the normal language, or else, more frequently, -be so hackneyed that no one finds pleasure in using it any longer. - -Slang words may first be words from the ordinary language used in a -different sense, generally metaphorically. Sometimes we meet with the -same figurative expression in the slang of various countries, as when -the ‘head’ is termed _the upper story_ (_upper loft_, _upper works_) -in English, _øverste etage_ in Danish, and _oberstübchen_ in German; -more often different images are chosen in different languages, as -when for the same idea we have _nut_ or _chump_ in English and _pære_ -(‘pear’) in Danish, _coco_ or _ciboule_ (or _boule_) in French. Slang -words of this character may in some instances give rise to expressions -the origin of which is totally forgotten. In old slang there is an -expression for the tongue, _the red rag_; this is shortened into -_the rag_, and I suspect that the verb _to rag_, ‘to scold, rate, -talk severely to’ (“of obscure origin,” NED), is simply from this -substantive (cf. _to jaw_). - -Secondly, slang words may be words of the normal language used in -their ordinary signification, but more or less modified in regard to -form. Thus we have many shortened forms, _exam_, _quad_, _pub_, for -_examination_, _quadrangle_, _public-house_, etc. Not unfrequently -the shortening process is combined with an extension, some ending -being more or less arbitrarily substituted for the latter part of -the word, as when _football_ becomes _footer_, and _Rugby football_ -and _Association football_ become _Rugger_ and _Socker_, or when at -Cambridge a freshman is called a _fresher_ and a bedmaker a _bedder_. - -In schoolboys’ slang (Harrow) there is an ending _-agger_ which may be -added instead of the latter part of any word; about 1885 Prince Albert -Victor when at Cambridge was nicknamed _the Pragger_; an Agnostic was -called a _Nogger_, etc. I strongly suspect that the word _swagger_ is -formed in the same way from _swashbuckler_. Another schoolboys’ ending -is _-g_: _fog_, _seg_, _lag_, for ‘first, second, last,’ _gag_ at -Winchester for ‘gathering’ (a special kind of Latin exercise). Charles -Lamb mentions from Christ’s Hospital _crug_ for ‘a quarter of a loaf,’ -evidently from _crust_; _sog_ = sovereign, _snag_ = snail (old), _swig_ -= swill; words like _fag_, _peg away_, and others are perhaps to be -explained from the same tendency. Arnold Bennett in one of his books -says of a schoolboy that his vocabulary comprised an extraordinary -number of words ending in _gs_: _foggs_, _seggs_, for first, second, -etc. It is interesting to note that in French argot there are similar -endings added to more or less mutilated words: _-aque_, _-èque_, -_-oque_ (Sainéan, _L’Argot ancien_, 1907, 50 and especially 57). - -There is also a peculiar class of roundabout expressions in which -the speaker avoids the regular word, but hints at it in a covert way -by using some other word, generally a proper name, which bears a -resemblance to it or is derived from it, really or seemingly. Instead -of saying ‘I want to go to bed,’ he will say, ‘I am for Bedfordshire,’ -or in German ‘Ich gehe nach Bethlehem’ or ‘nach Bettingen,’ in Danish -‘gå til Slumstrup, Sovstrup, Hvilsted.’ Thus also ‘send a person to -Birching-lane,’ i.e. to whip him, ‘he has been at Hammersmith,’ i.e. -has been beaten, thrashed; ‘you are on the highway to Needham,’ i.e. on -the high-road to poverty, etc. (Cf. my paper on “Punning or Allusive -Phrases” in _Nord. Tidsskr. f. Fil._ 3 r. 9. 66.) - -The language of poetry is closely related to slang, in so far as both -strive to avoid commonplace and everyday expressions. The difference is -that where slang looks only for the striking or unexpected expression, -and therefore often is merely eccentric or funny (sometimes only -would-be comic), poetry looks higher and craves abiding beauty--beauty -in thought as well as beauty in form, the latter obtained, among other -things, by rhythm, alliteration, rime, and harmonious variety of vowel -sounds. - -In some countries these forms tend to become stereotyped, and then may -to some extent kill the poetic spirit, poetry becoming artificiality -instead of art; the later Skaldic poetry may serve as an illustration. -Where there is a strong literary tradition--and that may be found -even where there is no written literature--veneration for the old -literature handed down from one’s ancestors will often lead to a -certain fossilization of the literary language, which becomes a shrine -of archaic expressions that no one uses naturally or can master without -great labour. If this state of things persists for centuries, it -results in a cleavage between the spoken and the written language which -cannot but have the most disastrous effects on all higher education: -the conditions prevailing nowadays in Greece and in Southern India -may serve as a warning. Space forbids me more than a bare mention of -this topic, which would deserve a much fuller treatment; for details -I may refer to K. Krumbacher, _Das Problem der neugriechischen -Schriftsprache_, Munich, 1902 (for the other side of the case see G. N. -Hatzidakis, _Die Sprachfrage in Griechenland_, Athens, 1905) and G. V. -Ramamurti, _A Memorandum on Modern Telugu_, Madras, 1913. - -FOOTNOTES: - -[65] “His pronunciation of some words is so distinct that an idea -crossed me once that he might be an actor” (Shaw, _Cashel Byron’s -Profession_, 66). - -[66] Dickens, _D. Cop._ 2. 149 neverbe_rr_er, 150 I’mafraid -you’reno_r_well (ib. also _r_ for _n_: Amigoa_r_awaysoo, Goo_r_i = Good -night). | _Our Mut. Fr._ 602 le_rr_ers. | Thackeray, _Newc._ 163 _Whas_ -that? | Anstey, _Vice V._ 328 _sh_upper, I _sh_pose, wha_rr_iplease, -say tha_rr_again. | Meredith, _R. Feverel_ 272 No_r_ a bi_r_ of it. | -Walpole, _Duch. of Wrex._ 323-4 non_sh_en_sh_, Wa_sh_ the matter? | -Galsworthy, _In Chanc._ 17 cur_sh_, un_sh_tood’m. Cf. also Fijn van -Draat, ESt 34. 363 ff. - -[67] The inconveniences arising from having many homophones in a -language are eloquently set forth by Robert Bridges, _On English -Homophones_ (S.P.E., Oxford, 1919)--but I would not subscribe to -all the Laureate’s views, least of all to his practical suggestions -and to his unjustifiable attacks on some very meritorious English -phoneticians. He seems also to exaggerate the dangers, e.g. of the two -words _know_ and _no_ having the same sound, when he says (p. 22) that -unless a vowel like that in _law_ be restored to the negative _no_, -“I should judge that the verb _to know_ is doomed. The third person -singular of its present tense is _nose_, and its past tense is _new_, -and the whole inconvenience is too radical and perpetual to be received -all over the world.” But surely the rôle of these words in connected -speech is so different, and is nearly always made so clear by the -context, that it is very difficult to imagine real sentences in which -there would be any serious change of mistaking _know_ for _no_, or -_knows_ for _nose_, or _knew_ for _new_. I repeat: it is not homophony -as such--the phenomenon shown in the long lists lexicographers can -draw up of words of the same sound--that is decisive, but the chances -of mistakes in connected speech. It has been disputed whether the loss -of Gr. _humeîs_, ‘ye,’ was due to its identity in sound with _hemeîs_, -‘we’; Hatzidakis says that the new formation _eseîs_ is earlier than -the falling together of _e_ and _u_ [y] in the sound [i]. But according -to Dieterich and C. D. Buck (_Classical Philology_, 9. 90, 1914) the -confusion of _u_ and _i_ or _e_ dates back to the second century. -Anyhow, all confusion is now obviated, for both the first and the -second persons pl. have new forms which are unambiguous: _emeîs_ and -_eseîs_ or _seîs_. - -[68] The NED has not arrived at this explanation; it says: “_Peer_ -is not a phonetic development of _pire_, and cannot, so far as is at -present known, be formally identified with that word”; “the verbs -_keek_, _peek_, and _peep_ are app. closely allied to each other. -_Kike_ and _pike_, as earlier forms of _keek_ and _peek_, occur in -Chaucer; _pepe_, _peep_ is of later appearance.... The phonetic -relations between the forms _pike_, _peek_, _peak_, are as yet -unexplained.” - -[69] See, for instance, the following strong expressions: “Une -langue est sans cesse rongée et menacée de ruine par l’action des -lois phonétiques, qui, livrées à elles-mêmes, opéreraient avec une -régularité fatale et désagrégeraient le système grammatical.... -Heureusement l’analogie (c’est ainsi qu’on désigne la tendance -inconsciente à conserver ou recréer ce que les lois phonétiques -menacent ou détruisent) a peu à peu effacé ces différences ... il -s’agit d’une perpétuelle dégradation due aux changements phonétiques -aveugles, et qui est toujours ou prévenue ou réparée par une -réorganisation parallèle du système” (Bally, LV 44 f.). - -[70] Some speakers will say [su·] in _Susan_, _supreme_, -_superstition_, but will take care to pronounce [sju·] in _suit_, -_sue_. Others are more consistent one way or the other. - -[71] I.e. “With confused and indistinct articulation; also, with a -husky or hoarse voice”--NED. - -[72] Even in speaking a foreign language one may unconsciously apply -phonetic correspondences; a countryman of mine thus told me that he -once, in his anger at being charged an exorbitant price for something, -exclaimed: “Das sind doch _unblaue_ preise!”--coining in the hurry the -word _unblaue_ for the Danish _ublu_ (shameless), because the negative -prefix _un-_ corresponds to Dan. _u-_, and _au_ very often stands in -German where Dan. has _u_ (_haus_ = _hus_, etc.). On hearing his own -words, however, he immediately saw his mistake and burst out laughing. - - - - -_BOOK IV_ - -THE DEVELOPMENT OF LANGUAGE - - - - -CHAPTER XVI - -ETYMOLOGY - - § 1. Achievements. § 2. Doubtful Cases. § 3. Facts, not Fancies. § 4. - Hope. § 5. Requirements. § 6. Blendings. § 7. Echo Words. § 8. Some - Conjunctions. § 9. Object of Etymology. § 10. Reconstruction. - - -XVI.--§ 1. Achievements. - -Few things have been more often quoted in works on linguistics than -Voltaire’s _mot_ that in etymology vowels count for nothing and -consonants for very little. But it is now said just as often that the -satire might be justly levelled at the pseudo-scientific etymology of -the eighteenth century, but has no application to our own times, in -which etymology knows how to deal with both vowels and consonants, -and--it should be added, though it is often forgotten--with the -meanings of words. One often comes across outbursts of joy and pride in -the achievements of modern etymological science, like the following, -which is quoted here _instar omnium_: “Nowadays etymology has got past -the period of more or less ‘happy thoughts’ (glücklichen einfälle) and -has developed into a science in which, exactly as in any other science, -serious persevering work must lead to reliable results” (H. Schröder, -_Ablautstudien_, 1910, X; cf. above, Max Müller and Whitney, p. 89). - -There is no denying that much has been achieved, but it is equally true -that a skeptical mind cannot fail to be struck with the uncertainty of -many proposed explanations: very often scholars have not got beyond -‘happy thoughts,’ many of which have not even been happy enough to have -been accepted by anybody except their first perpetrators. From English -alone, which for twelve hundred years has had an abundant written -literature, and which has been studied by many eminent linguists, who -have had many sister-languages with which to compare it, it would be -an easy matter to compile a long list of words, well-known words of -everyday occurrence, which etymologists have had to give up as beyond -their powers of solution (_fit_, _put_, _pull_, _cut_, _rouse_, _pun_, -_fun_, _job_). And equally perplexing are many words now current all -over Europe, some of them comparatively recent and yet completely -enigmatic: _race_, _baron_, _baroque_, _rococo_, _zinc_. - - -XVI.--§ 2. Doubtful Cases. - -Or let us take a word of that class which forms the staple subject -of etymological disquisitions, one in which the semantic side is -literally as clear as sunshine, namely the word for ‘sun.’ Here we -have, among others, the following forms: (1) _sun_, OE. _sunne_, Goth. -_sunno_; (2) Dan., Lat. _sol_, Goth. _sauil_, Gr. _hḗlios_; (3) OE. -_sigel_, _sægl_, Goth. _sugil_; (4) OSlav. _slǔnǐce_, Russ. _solnce_ -(now with mute _l_). That these forms are related cannot be doubted, -but their mutual relation, and their relation to Gr. _selḗnē_, which -means ‘moon,’ and to OE. _swegel_ ‘sky,’ have never been cleared up. -Holthausen derives _sunno_ from the verb _sinnan_ ‘go’ and OE. _sigel_ -from the verb _sigan_ ‘descend, go down’--but is it really probable -that our ancestors should have thought of the sun primarily as the one -that goes, or that sets? The word _south_ (orig. *_sunþ_; the _n_ as -in OHG. _sund_ is still kept in Dan. _sønden_) is generally explained -as connected with _sun_, and the meaning ‘sunny side’ is perfectly -natural; but now H. Schröder thinks that it is derived from a word -meaning ‘right’ (OE. _swiðre_, orig. ‘stronger,’ a comparative of the -adj. found in G. _geschwind_), and he says that the south is to the -right when you look at the sun at sunrise--which is perfectly true, but -why should people have thought of the south as being to the right when -they wanted to speak of it in the afternoon or evening? - -Let me take one more example to show that our present methods, or -perhaps our present data, sometimes leave us completely in the lurch -with regard to the most ordinary words. We have a series of words which -may all, without any formal difficulties, be referred to a root-form -_seqw-_. Their significations are, respectively-- - - (1) ‘say,’ E. _say_, OE. _secgan_, ON. _segja_, G. _sagen_, Lith. - _sakýti_. To this is referred Gr. _énnepe_, _eníspein_, Lat. - _inseque_ and possibly _inquam_. - - (2) ‘show, point out,’ OSlav. _sočiti_, Lat. _signum_. - - (3) ‘see,’ E. _see_, OE. _seon_, Goth. _saihwan_, G. _sehen_, etc. - - (4) ‘follow,’ Lat. _sequor_, Gr. _hépomai_, Skr. _sácate_. Here - belongs Lat. _socius_, OE. _secg_ ‘man,’ orig. ‘follower.’ - -Now, are these four groups ‘etymologically identical’? Opinions differ -widely, as may be seen from C. D. Buck, “Words of Speaking and Saying” -(_Am. Journ. of Philol._ 36. 128, 1915). They may be thus tabulated, a -comma meaning supposed identity and a dash the opposite: - - 1, 2-3, 4 Kluge, Falk, Torp. - 1, 2, 3-4 Brugmann. - 1, 2, 3, 4 Wood, Buck.[73] - -For the transition in meaning from ‘see’ to ‘say’ we are referred -to such words as _observe_, _notice_, G. _bemerkung_, while in -G. _anweisen_, and still more in Lat. _dico_, there is a similar -transition from ‘show’ to ‘say.’ Wood derives the signification -‘follow’ from ‘point out,’ through ‘show, guide, attend.’ With regard -to the relation between 3 and 4, it has often been said that to see is -to follow with the eyes. In short, it is possible, if you take some -little pains, to discover notional ties between all four groups which -may not be so very much looser than those between other words which -everybody thinks related. And yet? I cannot see that the knowledge we -have at present enables us, or can enable us, to do more than leave -the mutual relation of these groups an open question. One man’s guess -is just as good as another’s, or one man’s yes as another man’s no--if -the connexion of these words is ‘science,’ it is, if I may borrow -an expression from the old archæologist Samuel Pegge, _scientia ad -libitum_. Personal predilection and individual taste have not been -ousted from etymological research to the extent many scholars would -have us believe. - -Or we may perhaps say that among the etymologies found in dictionaries -and linguistic journals some are solid and firm as rocks, but others -are liquid and fluctuate like the sea; and finally not a few are in -a gaseous state and blow here and there as the wind listeth. Some of -them are no better than poisonous gases, from which may Heaven preserve -us![74] - - -XVI.--§ 3. Facts, not Fancies. - -As early as 1867 Michel Bréal, in an excellent article (reprinted -in M 267 ff.), called attention to the dangers resulting from the -general tendency of comparative linguists to “jump intermediate steps -in order at once to mount to the earliest stages of the language,” -but his warning has not taken effect, so that etymologists in dealing -with a word found only in comparatively recent times will often try to -reconstruct what might have been its Proto-Aryan form and compare that -with some word found in some other language. Thus, Falk and Torp refer -G. _krieg_ to an Aryan primitive form *_grêigho-_, *_grîgho-_, which is -compared with Irish _bríg_ ‘force.’ But the German word is not found -in use till the middle period; it is peculiar to German and unknown in -related languages (for the Scandinavian and probably also the Dutch -words are later loans from Germany). These writers do not take into -account how improbable it is that such a word, if it were really an -old traditional word for this fundamental idea, should never once have -been recorded in any of the old documents of the whole of our family of -languages. What should we think of the man who would refer _boche_, the -French nickname for ‘German’ which became current in 1914, and before -that time had only been used for a few years and known to a few people -only, to a Proto-Aryan root-form? Yet the method in both cases is -identical; it presupposes what no one can guarantee, that the words in -question are of those which trot along the royal road of language for -century after century without a single side-jump, semantic or phonetic. -Such words are the favourites of linguists because they have always -behaved themselves since the days of Noah; but others are full of the -most unexpected pranks, which no scientific ingenuity can discover if -we do not happen to know the historical facts. Think of _grog_, for -example. Admiral Vernon, known to sailors by the nickname of “Old Grog” -because he wore a cloak of grogram (this, by the way, from Fr. _gros -grain_), in 1740 ordered a mixture of rum and water to be served out -instead of pure rum, and the name was transferred from the person to -the drink. If it be objected that such leaps are found only in slang, -the answer is that slang words very often become recognized after some -time, and who knows but that may have been the case with _krieg_ just -as well as with many a recent word? - -At any rate, facts weigh more than fancies, and whoever wants to -establish the etymology of a word must first ascertain all the -historical facts available with regard to the place and time of its -rise, its earliest signification and syntactic construction, its -diffusion, the synonyms it has ousted, etc. Thus, and thus only, can -he hope to rise above loose conjectures. Here the great historical -dictionaries, above all the Oxford _New English Dictionary_, render -invaluable service. And let me mention one model article outside -these dictionaries, in which Hermann Möller has in my opinion given a -satisfactory solution of the riddle of G. _ganz_: he explains it as a -loan from Slav _konǐcǐ_ ‘end,’ used especially adverbially (perhaps -with a preposition in the form _v-konec_ or _v-konc_) ‘to the end, -completely’; Slav _c_ = G. _z_, Slav _k_ pronounced essentially as -South G. _g_; the gradual spreading and various significations and -derived forms are accounted for with very great learning (_Zs. f. D. -Alt._ 36. 326 ff.). It is curious that this article should have been -generally overlooked or neglected, though the writer seems to have met -all the legitimate requirements of a scientific etymology. - - -XVI.--§ 4. Hope. - -I have endeavoured to fulfil these requirements in the new explanation -I have given of the word _hope_ (Dan. _håbe_, Swed. _hoppas_, G. -_hoffen_), now used in all Gothonic tongues in exactly the same -signification. Etymologists are at variance about this word. Kluge -connects it with the OE. noun _hyht_, and from that form infers that -Gothonic *_hopôn_ stands for *_huqôn_, from an Aryan root _kug_; he -says that a connexion with Lat. _cupio_ is scarcely possible. Walde -likewise rejects connexion between _cupio_ and either _hope_ or -Goth. _hugjan_. To Falk and Torp _hope_ has probably nothing to do -with _hyht_, but probably with _cupio_, which is derived from a root -*_kup_ = _kvap_, found in Lat. _vapor_ ‘steam,’ and with a secondary -form *_kub_, in _hope_, and *_kvab_ in Goth. _af-hwapjan_ ‘choke’--a -wonderful medley of significations. H. Möller (_Indoeur.-Semit. -sammenlignende Glossar._ 63), in accordance with his usual method, -establishes an Aryo-Semitic root *_k̑-u̯-_, meaning ‘ardere’ and -transferred to ‘ardere amore, cupiditate, desiderio,’ the root being -extended with _b-_: _p-_ in _hope_ and _cupio_, with _gh-_ in Goth. -_hugs_, and with _g̑-_ in OE. _hyht_. Surely a typical example of the -perplexity of our etymologists, who disagree in everything except -just in the one thing which seems to me extremely doubtful, that -_hope_ with the present spiritual signification goes back to common -Aryan. Now, what are the real facts of the matter? Simply these, that -the word _hope_ turns up at a comparatively late date in historical -times at one particular spot, and from there it gradually spreads to -the neighbouring countries. In Denmark (_håb_, _håbe_) and in Sweden -(_hopp_, _hoppas_) it is first found late in the Middle Ages as a -religious loan from Low German _hope_, _hopen_. High German _hoffen_ -is found very rarely about 1150, but does not become common till a -hundred years later; it is undoubtedly taken (with sound substitution) -from Low German and moves in Germany from north to south. Old Saxon -has the subst. _tō-hopa_, which has probably come from OE., where we -have the same form for the subst., _tō-hopa_. This is pretty common -in religious prose, but in poetry it is found only once (Boet.)--a -certain indication that the word is recent. The subst. without _tō_ -is comparatively late (Ælfric, ab. 1000). The verb is found in rare -instances about a hundred years earlier, but does not become common -till later. Now, it is important to notice that the verb in the old -period never takes a direct object, but is always connected with the -preposition _tō_ (compare the subst.), even in modern usage we have -_to hope to_, _for_, _in_. Similarly in G., where the phrase was _auf -etwas hoffen_; later the verb took a genitive, then a pronoun in the -accusative, and finally an ordinary object; in biblical language we -find also _zu gott hoffen_. Now, I would connect our word with the -form _hopu_, found twice as part of a compound in _Beowulf_ (450 and -764), where ‘refuge’ gives good sense: _hopan to_, then, is to ‘take -one’s refuge to,’ and _to-hopa_ ‘refuge.’ This verb I take to be at -first identical with _hop_ (the only OE. instance I know of this is -Ælfric, _Hom._ 1. 202: _hoppode ongean his drihten_). We have also one -instance of a verb _onhupian_ (_Cura Past._ 441) ‘draw back, recoil,’ -which agrees with ON. _hopa_ ‘move backwards’ (to the quotations in -Fritzner may be added Laxd. 49, 15, þeir Osvígssynir hopudu undan).[75] -The original meaning seems to have been ‘bend, curb, bow, stoop,’ -either in order to leap, or to flee, from something bad, or towards -something good; cf. the subst. _hip_, OE. _hype_, Goth. _hups_, Dan. -_hofte_, G. _hüfte_, Lat. _cubitus_, etc. (Holthausen, _Anglia Beibl._, -1904, 350, deals with these words, but does not connect them with -_hop_, _-hopu_, or _hope_.) The transition from bodily movement to the -spiritual ‘hope’ may have been favoured by the existence of the verb -OE. _hogian_ ‘think,’ but is not in itself more difficult than with, -e.g., Lat. _ex(s)ultare_ ‘leap up, rejoice,’ or Dan. _lide på_ ‘lean -to, confide in, trust,’ _tillid_ ‘confidence, reliance’; and a new -word for ‘hope’ was required because the old _wen_ (Goth. _wens_), vb. -_wenan_, had at an early age acquired a more general meaning ‘opinion, -probability,’ vb. ‘suppose, imagine.’ The difficulty that the word for -‘hope’ has single or short _p_ (in Swed., however, _pp_), while _hop_, -OE. _hoppian_, has double or long _p_, is no serious hindrance to our -etymology, because the gemination may easily be accounted for on the -principle mentioned below (Ch. XX § 9), that is, as giving a more vivid -expression of the rapid action. - - -XVI.--§ 5. Requirements. - -It is, of course, impossible to determine once for all by hard-and-fast -rules how great the correspondence must be for us to recognize two -words as ‘etymologically identical,’ nor to say to which of the two -sides, the phonetic and the semantic, we should attach the greater -importance. With the rise of historical phonology the tendency has been -to require exact correspondence in the former respect, and in semantics -to be content with more or less easily found parallels. One example -will show how particular many scholars are in matters of sound. The -word _nut_ (OE. _hnutu_, G. _nuss_, ON. _hnot_, Dan. _nød_) is by Paul -declared “not related to Lat. _nux_” and by Kluge “neither originally -akin with nor borrowed from Lat. _nux_,” while the NED does not even -mention _nux_ and thus must think it quite impossible to connect it -with the English word. We have here in two related languages two -words resembling each other not only in sound, but in stem-formation -and gender, and possessing exactly the same signification, which is -as concrete and definite as possible. And yet we are bidden to keep -them asunder! Fortunately I am not the first to protest against such -barbarity: H. Pedersen (KZ n.f. 12. 251) explains both words from -*_dnuk-_, which by metathesis has become *_knud-_, while Falk and Torp -as well as Walde think the latter form the original one, which in Latin -has been shifted into *_dnuk-_. Which of these views is correct (both -may be wrong) is of less importance than the victory of common sense -over phonological pedantry. - -There are two explanations which have had very often to do duty where -the phonological correspondence is not exact, namely root-variation -(root-expansion with determinatives) and apophony (ablaut). Of -the former Uhlenbeck (PBB 30. 252) says: “The theory of root -determinatives no doubt contains a kernel of truth, but it has only -been fatal to etymological science, as it has drawn the attention from -real correspondences between well-substantiated words to delusive -similarities between hypothetical abstractions.” Apophony inspires -more confidence, and in many cases offers fully reliable explanations; -but this principle, too, has been often abused, and it is difficult -to find its true limitations. Many special applications of it appear -questionable; thus, when G. _stumm_, Dan. _stum_, is explained as an -apophonic form of the adj. _stam_, Goth. _stamms_, from which we have -the verb _stammer_, G. _stammeln_, Dan. _stamme_: is it really probable -that the designation of muteness should be taken from the word for -stammering? This appears especially improbable when we consider that -at the time when the new word _stumm_ made its appearance there was -already another word for ‘mute,’ namely _dumm_, _dumb_, the word which -has been preserved in English. I therefore propose a new etymology: -_stumm_ is a blending of the two synonyms _still(e)_ and _dum(b)_, -made up of the beginning of the one and the ending of the other word; -through adopting the initial _st-_ the word was also associated with -_stump_, and we get an exact correspondence between _dumm_, _dum_, -_stumm_, _stum_, applied to persons, and _dumpf_, _stumpf_, Dan. -_dump_, _stump_, applied to things. Note that in those languages (G., -Dan.) in which the new word _stum(m)_ was used, the unchanged _dum(m)_ -was free to develop the new sense ‘stupid’ (or was the creation -of _stum_ occasioned by the old word tending already to acquire -this secondary meaning?), while _dumb_ in English stuck to the old -signification. - - -XVI.--§ 6. Blendings. - -Blendings of synonyms play a much greater rôle in the development of -language than is generally recognized. Many instances may be heard in -everyday life, most of them being immediately corrected by the speaker -(see above, XV § 4), but these momentary lapses cannot be separated -from other instances which are of more permanent value because they -are so natural that they will occur over and over again until speakers -will hardly feel the blend as anything else than an ordinary word. -M. Bloomfield (IF 4. 71) says that he has been many years conscious -of an irrepressible desire to assimilate the two verbs _quench_ and -_squelch_ in both directions by forming _squench_ and _quelch_, and -he has found the former word in a negro story by Page. The expression -‘irrepressible desire’ struck me on reading this, for I have myself in -my Danish speech the same feeling whenever I am to speak of tending -a patient, for I nearly always say _plasse_ as a result of wavering -between _pleje_ [_plaiə_] and _passe_. Many examples may be found in -G. A. Bergström, _On Blendings of Synonymous or Cognate Expressions -in English_, Lund, 1906, and Louise Pound, _Blends, Their Relation -to English Word Formation_, Heidelberg, 1914. But neither of these -two writers has seen the full extent of this principle of formation, -which explains many words of greater importance than those nonce words -which are found so plentifully in Miss Pound’s paper. Let me give some -examples, some of them new, some already found by others: - - _blot_ = _bl_emish, _bl_ack + sp_ot_, p_lot_, d_ot_; there is also an - obsolete sp_lot_. - - _blunt_ = _bl_ind + st_unt_. - - _crouch_ = _cr_inge, _cr_ook, _cr_awl, †_crou_k + _couch_. - - _flush_ = _fl_a_sh_ + b_lush_. - - _frush_ = _fr_og + th_rush_ (all three names of the same disease in - a horse’s foot). - - _glaze_ (Shakespeare) = _gla_re + _gaze_. - - _good-bye_ = _good_-night, _good_-morning + _godbye_ (God be with ye). - - _knoll_ = _kn_e_ll_ + t_oll_. - - _scroll_ = _scrow_ + _roll_. - - _slash_ = _sl_ay, _sl_ing, _sl_at + g_ash_, d_ash_. - - _slender_ = _sl_ight (_sl_im) + t_ender_. - -Such blends are especially frequent in words expressive of sounds or in -some other way symbolical, as, for instance: - - _flurry_ = _fl_ing, _fl_ow and many other _fl_-words + h_urry_ (note - also sc_urry_). - - _gruff_ = _gru_m, _gr_im + _rough_. - - _slide_ = _sl_ip + g_lide_. - - _troll_ = _tr_i_ll_ + _roll_ (in some senses perhaps rather from - _tr_ead, _tr_undle + _roll_). - - _twirl_ = _tw_ist + _whirl_. - -In slang blends abound, e.g.: - - _tosh_ (Harrow) = _t_ub + w_ash_. (Sometimes explained as _toe-wash_.) - - _blarmed_ = _bl_a_med_, _bl_essed and other _bl_-words + d_arned_ - (damned). - - _be danged_ = _da_mned + h_anged_. - - _I swow_ = _swe_ar + v_ow_. - - _brunch_ = _br_eakfast + l_unch_ (so also, though more rarely - _brupper_ (... + s_upper_), _tunch_ (_t_ea + l_unch_), _tupper_ = - _t_ea + s_upper_).[76] - - -XVI.--§ 7. Echo-words. - -Most etymologists are very reluctant to admit echoism; thus Diez -rejects onomatopœic origin of It. _pisciare_, Fr. _pisser_--an -echo-word if ever there was one--and says, “One can easily go too far -in supposing onomatopœia: as a rule it is more advisable to build on -existing words”; this he does by deriving this verb from a non-existing -*_pipisare_, _pipsare_, from _pipa_ ‘pipe, tube.’ Falk and Torp refer -_dump_ (Dan. _dumpe_) to Swed. _dimpa_, a Gothonic root _demp_, -supposed to be an extension of an Aryan root _dhen_: thus they are too -deaf to hear the sound of the heavy fall expressed by _um(p)_, cf. Dan. -_bumpe_, _bums_, _plumpe_, _skumpe_, _jumpe_, and similar words in -other languages. - -It may be fancy, but I think I hear the same sound in Lat. _plumbum_, -which I take to mean at first not the metal, but the plummet that -was dumped or plumped into the water and was denominated from the -sound; as this was generally made of lead, the word came to be used -for the metal. Most etymologists take it for granted that _plumbum_ -is a loan-word, some being honest enough to confess that they do not -know from what language, while others without the least scruple or -hesitation say that it was taken from Iberian: our ignorance of that -language is so deep that no one can enter an expert’s protest against -such a supposition.[77] But if my hypothesis is right, the words -_plummet_ (from OFr. _plommet_, a diminutive of _plomb_) as well as the -verb Fr. _plonger_, whence E. _plunge_, from Lat. *_plumbicare_, are -not only derivatives from _plumbum_ (the only thing mentioned by other -scholars), but also echo-words, and they, or at any rate the verb, must -to a great extent owe their diffusion to their felicitously symbolic -sound. In a novel I find: “Plump went the lead”--showing how this sound -is still found adequate to express the falling of the lead in sounding. -The NED says under the verb _plump_: “Some have compared L. _plumbare_ -... to throw the lead-line ... but the approach of form between -_plombar_ and the LG. _plump-plomp_ group seems merely fortuitous” -(!). I see sound symbolism in _all_ the words _plump_, while the NED -will only allow it in the most obvious cases. From the sound of a body -plumping into the water we have interesting developments in the adverb, -as in the following quotations: I said, _plump_ out, that I couldn’t -stand any more of it (Bernard Shaw) | The famous diatribe against -Jesuitism points _plumb_ in the same direction (Morley) | fall _plum_ -into the jaws of certain critics (Swift) | Nollie was a _plumb_ little -idiot (Galsworthy). In the last sense ‘entirely’ it is especially -frequent in America, e.g. They lost their senses, _plumb_ lost their -senses (Churchill) | she’s _plum_ crazy, it’s _plum_ bad, etc. Related -words for fall, etc., are _plop_, _plout_, _plunk_, _plounce_. Much -might also be said in this connexion of various _pop_ and _bob_ words, -but I shall refrain. - - -XVI.--§ 8. Some Conjunctions. - -Sometimes obviously correct etymologies yet leave some psychological -points unexplained. One of my pet theories concerns some adversative -conjunctions. Lat. _sed_ has been supplanted by _magis_: It. _ma_, -Sp. _mas_, Fr. _mais_. The transition is easily accounted for; from -‘more’ it is no far cry to ‘rather’ (cf. G. _vielmehr_), which can -readily be employed to correct or gainsay what has just been said. -The Scandinavian word for ‘but’ is _men_, which came into use in the -fifteenth century and is explained as a blending of _meden_ in its -shortened form _men_ (now _mens_) ‘while’ and Low German _men_ ‘but,’ -which stands for older _niwan_, from the negative _ni_ and _wan_ -‘wanting’; the meaning has developed through that of ‘except’ and the -sound is easily understood as an instance of assimilation. The same -phonetic development is found in Dutch _maar_, OFris. _mar_, from _en -ware_ ‘were not,’ the same combination which has yielded G. _nur_. -Thus we have four different ways of getting to expressions for ‘but,’ -none of which presents the least difficulty to those familiar with the -semantic ways of words. But why did these various nations seize on new -words? Weren’t the old ones good enough? - -Here I must call attention to two features that are common to these -new conjunctions, first their syntactic position, which is invariably -in the beginning of the sentence, while such synonymous words as Lat. -_autem_ and G. _aber_ may be placed after one or more words; then their -phonetic agreement in one point: _magis_, _men_, _maar_ all begin -with _m_. Now, both these features are found in two words for ‘but,’ -about whose etymological origin I can find no information, Finnic -_mutta_ and Santal _menkhan_, as well as in _me_, which is used in the -_Ancrene Riwle_ and a few other early Middle English texts and has been -dubiously connected with the Scandinavian (and French?) word. How are -we to explain these curious coincidences? I think by the nature of the -sound [m], which is produced when the lips are closed while the tongue -rests passively and the soft palate is lowered so as to allow air to -escape through the nostrils--in short, the position which is typical -of anybody who is quietly thinking over matters without as yet saying -anything, with the sole difference that in his case the vocal chords -are passive, while they are made to vibrate to bring forth an _m_. - -Now, it very often happens that a man wants to say something, but has -not yet made up his mind as to _what_ to say; and in this moment of -hesitation, while thoughts are in the process of conception, the lungs -and vocal chords will often be prematurely set going, and the result -is [m] (sometimes preceded by the corresponding voiceless sound), -often written _hm_ or _h’m_, which thus becomes the interjection of -an unshaped contradiction. Not infrequently this [m] precedes a real -word; thus _M’yes_ (written in this way by Shaw, _Misalliance_ 154, and -Merrick, _Conrad_ 179) and Dan. _mja_, to mark a hesitating consent. - -This will make it clear why words beginning with _m_ are so often -chosen as adversative conjunctions: people begin with this sound and go -on with some word that gives good sense and which happens to begin with -_m_: _mais_, _maar_. The Dan. _men_ in the mouth of some early speakers -is probably this [m], sliding into the old conjunction _en_, just as -_myes_ is _m_ + _yes_; while other original users of _men_ may have -been thinking of _men_ = _meden_, and others again of Low German _men_: -these three etymologies are not mutually destructive, for all three -origins may have concurrently contributed to the popularity of _men_. -Modern Greek and Serbian _ma_ are generally explained as direct loans -from Italian, but may be indigenous, as may also dialectal Rumanian -_ma_ in the same sense, for in the hesitating [m] as the initial sound -of objections we have one of those touches of nature which make the -whole world kin.[78] - - -XVI.--§ 9. Object of Etymology. - -What is the object of etymological science? “To determine the true -signification of a word,” answers one of the masters of etymological -research (Walde, _Lat. et. Wörterb._ xi). But surely in most cases that -can be achieved without the help of etymology. We know the true sense -of hundreds of words about the etymology of which we are in complete -ignorance, and we should know exactly what the word _grog_ means, even -if the tradition of its origin had been accidentally lost. Many people -still believe that an account of the origin of a name throws some light -on the essence of the thing it stands for; when they want to define -say ‘religion’ or ‘civilization,’ they start by stating the (real or -supposed) origin of the name--but surely that is superstition, though -the first framers of the name ‘etymology’ (from Gr. _etumon_ ‘true’) -must have had the same idea in their heads. Etymology tells us nothing -about the things, nor even about the present meaning of a word, but -only about the way in which a word has come into existence. At best, it -tells us not what _is_ true, but what _has been_ true. - -The overestimation of etymology is largely attributable to the -“conviction that there can be nothing in language that had not an -intelligible purpose, that there is nothing that is now irregular that -was not at first regular, nothing irrational that was not originally -rational” (Max Müller)--a conviction which is still found to underlie -many utterances about linguistic matters, but which readers of the -present volume will have seen is erroneous in many ways. On the whole, -Max Müller naïvely gives expression to what is unconsciously at the -back of much that is said and believed about language; thus, when he -says (L 1. 44): “I must ask you at present to take it for granted -that everything in language had originally a meaning. As language -can have no other object but to express our meaning, it might seem -to follow almost by necessity that language should contain neither -more nor less than what is required for that purpose.” Yes, so it -would if language had been constructed by an omniscient and omnipotent -being, but as it was developed by imperfect human beings, there is -every possibility of their having failed to achieve their purpose and -having done either more or less than was required to express their -meaning. It would be wrong to say that language (i.e. speaking man) -created first what was strictly necessary, and afterwards what might -be considered superfluous; but it would be equally wrong to say that -linguistic luxuries were always created before necessaries; yet that -view would probably be nearer the truth than the former. Much of -what in former ages was felt to be necessary to express thoughts was -afterwards felt as pedantic crisscross and gradually eliminated; but at -all times many things have been found in language that can never have -been anything else but superfluous, exactly as many people use a great -many superfluous gestures which are not in the least significant and -in no way assist the comprehension of their intentions, but which they -somehow feel an impulse to perform. In language, as in life generally, -we have too little in some respects, and too much in others. - - -XVI.--§ 10. Reconstruction. - -Kluge somewhere (PBB 37. 479, 1911) says that the establishment of -the common Aryan language is the chief task of our modern science -of linguistics (to my mind it can never be more than a fragment of -that task, which must be to understand the nature of language), and -he thinks optimistically that “reconstructions with their reliable -methods have taken so firm root that we are convinced that we know the -common Aryan _grundsprache_ just as thoroughly as any language that -is more or less authenticated through literature.” This is a palpable -exaggeration, for no one nowadays has the courage of Schleicher to -print even the smallest fable in Proto-Aryan, and if by some miraculous -accident we were to find a text written in that language we may be sure -it would puzzle us just as much as Tokharian does. - -Reconstruction has two sides, an outer and an inner. With regard to -sounds, it seems to me that very often the masters of linguistics treat -us to reconstructed forms that are little short of impossible. This -is not the place to give a detailed criticism of the famous theory of -‘nasalis sonans,’ but I hope elsewhere to be able to state why I think -this theory a disfiguring excrescence on linguistic science: no one has -ever been able to find in any existing language such forms as _mnto_ -with stressed syllabic [n], given as the old form of our word _mouth_ -(Falk and Torp even give _stmnto_ in order to connect the word with Gr. -_stóma_), or as _dkmtóm_ (whence Lat. _centum_, etc.) or _bhrghnti̯es_ -or _gu̯mskete_ (Brugmann). Not only are these forms phonetically -impossible, but the theory fails to explain the transitions to the -forms actually existing in real languages, and everything is much -easier if we assume forms like [ʌm, ʌn] with some vowel like that of E. -_un-_. The use in Proto-Aryan reconstructions of non-syllabic _i_ and -_u_ also in some respects invites criticism, but it will be better to -treat these questions in a special paper. - -Semantic reconstruction calls for little comment here. It is evident -from the nature of the subject that no such strict rules can be given -in this domain as in the domain of sound; but nowadays scholars are -more realistic than formerly. Most of them will feel satisfied when -_moon_ and _month_ are associated with words having the same two -significations in related languages, without indulging in explanations -of both from a root _me_ ‘to measure’; and when our _daughter_ has -been connected with Gr. _thugáter_, Skt. _duhitár_ and corresponding -words in other languages, no attempt is made to go beyond the meaning -common to these words ‘daughter’ and to speculate what had induced our -ancestors to bestow that word on that particular relation, as when -Lassen derived it from the root _duh_ ‘to milk’ and pictured an idyllic -family life, in which it was the business of the young girls to milk -the cows, or when Fick derived the same word from the root _dheugh_ -‘to be useful’ (G. _taugen_: ‘wie die _magd_, _maid_ von _mögen_’), -as if the daughters were the only, or the most, efficient members of -the family. Unfortunately, such speculations are still found lingering -in many recent handbooks of high standing: Kluge hesitates whether to -assign the word _mutter_, _mother_, to the root _ma_ in the sense ‘mete -out’ or in the sense found in Sanskrit ‘to form,’ used of the fœtus in -the womb. A resigned acquiescence in inevitable ignorance and a sense -of reality should certainly be characteristics of future etymologists. - -FOOTNOTES: - -[73] With regard to Lat. _signum_ it should be noted that it is by -others explained as coming from Lat. _secare_ and as meaning a notch. - -[74] It is, of course, impossible to say how great a proportion of the -etymologies given in dictionaries should strictly be classed under -each of the following heads: (1) certain, (2) probable, (3) possible, -(4) improbable, (5) impossible--but I am afraid the first two classes -would be the least numerous. Meillet (Gr 59) has some excellent remarks -to the same effect; according to him, “pour une étymologie sûre, les -dictionnaires en offrent plus de dix qui sont douteuses et dont, en -appliquant une méthode rigoureuse, on ne saurait faire la preuve.” - -[75] Westphalian also has _hoppen_ ‘zurückweichen,’ ESt. 54. 88. - -[76] Lewis Carrol’s ‘portmanteau words’ are, of course, famous. - -[77] Speculation has been rife, but without any generally accepted -results, as to the relation between _plumbum_ and words for the same -metal in cognate languages: Gr. _molibos_, _molubdos_ and similar -forms, Ir. _luaide_, E. _lead_ (G. _lot_, ‘plummet, half an ounce’), -Scand. _bly_, OSlav. _olovo_, OPruss. _alwis_; see Curtius, Prellwitz, -Boisacq, Hirt Idg. 686, Schrader _Sprachvergl. u. Urgesch._, 3d. ed., -ii. 1. 95; Herm. Möller, _Sml. Glossar_ 87, says that _molibos_ and -_plumbum_ are extensions of the root _m-l_ ‘mollis esse’ and explains -the difference between the initial sounds by referring to _multum_: -comp. _plus_--certainly most ingenious, but not convincing. Some of -these words may originally have been echo-words for the plumping -plummet. - -[78] I have discussed this more in detail and added other _m_-words of -a somewhat related character in _Studier tillegnade E. Tegnér_, 1918, -p. 49 ff. - - - - -CHAPTER XVII - -PROGRESS OR DECAY? - - § 1. Linguistic Estimation. § 2. Degeneration? § 3. Appreciation of - Modern Tongues. § 4. The Scientific Attitude. § 5. Final Answer. § 6. - Sounds. § 7. Shortenings. § 8. Objections. Result. § 9. Verbal Forms. - § 10. Synthesis and Analysis. § 11. Verbal Concord. - - -XVII.--§ 1. Linguistic Estimation. - -The common belief of linguists that one form or one expression is -just as good as another, provided they are both found in actual use, -and that each language is to be considered a perfect vehicle for -the thoughts of the nation speaking it, is in some ways the exact -counterpart of the conviction of the Manchester school of economics -that everything is for the best in the best of all possible worlds if -only no artificial hindrances are put in the way of free exchange, for -demand and supply will regulate everything better than any Government -would be able to. Just as economists were blind to the numerous cases -in which actual wants, even crying wants, were not satisfied, so also -linguists were deaf to those instances which are, however, obvious -to whoever has once turned his attention to them, in which the very -structure of a language calls forth misunderstandings in everyday -conversation, and in which, consequently, a word has to be repeated -or modified or expanded or defined in order to call forth the idea -intended by the speaker: he took his stick--no, not John’s, but _his -own_; or: I mean _you_ in the plural (or, you all, or you girls); -no, a _box on the ear_; _un dé à jouer, non pas un dé à coudre_; -nein, ich meine _Sie persönlich_ (with very strong stress on _Sie_), -etc. Every careful writer in any language has had the experience -that on re-reading his manuscript he has discovered that a sentence -which he thought perfectly clear when he wrote it lends itself to -misunderstanding and has to be put in a different way; sometimes he -has to add a clarifying parenthesis, because his language is defective -in some respect, as when Edward Carpenter (_Art of Creation_ 171), in -speaking of the deification of the Babe, writes: “It is not likely -that Man--the human male--left to himself would have done this; but to -woman it was natural,” thus avoiding the misunderstanding that he was -speaking of the whole species, comprising both sexes. Herbert Spencer -writes: “Charles had recently obtained--a post in the Post Office I -was about to say, but the cacophony stopped me; and then I was about -to say, an office in the Post Office, which is nearly as bad; let me -say--a place in the Post Office” (_Autobiogr._ 2. 73--but of course -the defect is not really one of sound, as implied by the expression -‘cacophony,’ but one of signification, as both words _post_ and -_office_ are ambiguous, and the attempted collocation would therefore -puzzle the reader or hearer, because the same word would have to be -apprehended in two different senses in close succession). Similar -instances might be alleged from any language. - -No language is perfect, but if we admit this truth (or truism), we must -also admit by implication that it is not unreasonable to investigate -the relative value of different languages or of different details -in languages. When comparative linguists set themselves against the -narrowmindedness of classical scholars who thought Latin and Greek the -only worthy objects of study, and emphasized the value of all, even the -least literary languages and dialects, they were primarily thinking -of their value to the scientist, who finds something of interest in -each of them, but they had no idea of comparing the relative value of -languages from the point of view of their users--and yet the latter -comparison is of much greater importance than the former. - - -XVII.--§ 2. Degeneration? - -People will often use the expressions ‘evolution’ and ‘development’ in -connexion with language, but most linguists, when taken to task, will -maintain that these expressions as applied to languages should be used -without the implication which is commonly attached to them when used -of other objects, namely, that there is a progressive tendency towards -something better or nearer perfection. They will say that ‘evolution’ -means here simply changes going on in languages, without any judgment -as to the value of these changes. - -But those who do pronounce such a judgment nearly always take the -changes as a retrogressive rather than a progressive development: -“Tongues, like governments, have a natural tendency to degeneration,” -said Dr. Samuel Johnson in the Preface to his Dictionary, and the same -lament has been often repeated since his time. This is quite natural: -people have always had a tendency to believe in a golden age, that -is, in a remote past gloriously different to the miserable present. -Why not, then, have the same belief with regard to language, the more -so because one cannot fail to notice things in contemporary speech -which (superficially at any rate) look like corruptions of the ‘good -old’ forms? Everything ‘old’ thus comes to be considered ‘good.’ -Lowell and others think they have justified many of the commonly -reviled Americanisms if they are able to show them to have existed in -England in the sixteenth century, and similar considerations are met -with everywhere. The same frame of mind finds support in the usual -grammar-school admiration for the two classical languages and their -literatures. People were taught to look down upon modern languages as -mere dialects or _patois_ and to worship Greek and Latin; the richness -and fullness of forms found in those languages came naturally to be -considered the very _beau idéal_ of linguistic structure. Bacon gives -a classical expression to this view when he declares “ingenia priorum -seculorum nostris fuisse multo acutiora et subtiliora” (_De augm. -scient._[79]). To men fresh from the ordinary grammar-school training, -no language would seem really respectable that had not four or five -distinct cases and three genders, or that had less than five tenses -and as many moods in its verbs. Accordingly, such poor languages -as had either lost much of their original richness in grammatical -forms (_e.g._ French, English, or Danish), or had never had any, so -far as one knew (_e.g._ Chinese), were naturally looked upon with -something of the pity bestowed on relatives in reduced circumstances, -or the contempt felt for foreign paupers. It is well known how in -West-European languages, in English, German, Danish, Swedish, Dutch, -French, etc., obsolete forms were artificially kept alive and preferred -to younger forms by most grammarians; but we see exactly the same -point of view in such a language as Magyar, where, under the influence -of the historical studies of the grammarian Révai, the belief in -the excellence of the ‘veneranda antiquitas’ as compared with the -corruption of the modern language has been prevalent in schools and in -literature. (See Simonyi US 259; cf. on Modern Greek and Telugu above, -p. 301.) - -Comparative linguists had one more reason for adopting this manner of -estimating languages. To what had the great victories won by their -science been due? Whence had they got the material for that magnificent -edifice which had proved spacious enough to hold Hindus and Persians, -Lithuanians and Slavs, Greeks, Romans, Germans and Kelts? Surely it -was neither from Modern English nor Modern Danish, but from the oldest -stages of each linguistic group. The older a linguistic document was, -the more valuable it was to the first generation of comparative -linguists. An English form like _had_ was of no great use, but Gothic -_habaidedeima_ was easily picked to pieces, and each of its several -elements lent itself capitally to comparison with Sanskrit, Lithuanian -and Greek. The linguist was chiefly dependent for his material on -the old and archaic languages; his interest centred round their -fuller forms: what wonder, then, if in his opinion those languages -were superior to all others? What wonder if by comparing _had_ and -_habaidedeima_ he came to regard the English form as a mutilated and -worn-out relic of a splendid original? or if, noting the change from -the old to the modern form, he used strong language and spoke of -degeneration, corruption, depravation, decline, phonetic decay, etc.? - -The view that the modern languages of Europe, Persia and India are far -inferior to the old languages, or the one old language, from which -they descend, we have already encountered in the historical part of -this work, in Bopp, Humboldt, Grimm and their followers. It looms very -large in Schleicher, according to whom the history of language is all a -Decline and Fall, and in Max Müller, who says that “on the whole, the -history of all the Aryan languages is nothing but a gradual process of -decay.” Nor is it yet quite extinct. - - -XVII.--§ 3. Appreciation of Modern Tongues. - -Some scholars, however, had an indistinct feeling that this -unconditional and wholesale depreciation of modern languages could -not contain the whole truth, and I have collected various passages, -nearly always of a perfunctory or incidental character, in which these -languages are partly rehabilitated. Humboldt (Versch 284) speaks of -the modern use of auxiliary verbs and prepositions as a convenience -of the intellect which may even in some isolated instances lead to -greater definiteness. On Grimm see above, p. 62. Rask (SA 1. 191) says -that it is possible that the advantages of simplicity may be greater -than those of an elaborate linguistic structure. Madvig turns against -the uncritical admiration of the classical languages, but does not -go further than saying that the modern analytical languages are just -as good as the old synthetic ones, for thoughts can be expressed in -both with equal clearness. Kräuter (_Archiv f. neu. spr._ 57. 204) -says: “That decay is consistent with clearness and precision is shown -by French; that it is not fatal to poetry is seen in the language -of Shakespeare.” Osthoff (_Schriftspr. u. Volksmundart_, 1883, 13) -protests against a one-sided depreciation of the language of Lessing -and Goethe in favour of the language of Wulfila or Otfried, or vice -versa: a language possesses an inestimable charm if its phonetic system -remains unimpaired and its etymologies are transparent; but pliancy of -the material of language and flexibility to express ideas is really no -less an advantage; everything depends on the point of view: the student -of architecture has one point of view, the people who are to live in -the house another. - -Among those who thus half-heartedly refused to accept the downhill -theory to its full extent must be mentioned Whitney, many passages in -whose writings show a certain hesitation to make up his mind on this -question. When speaking of the loss of old forms he says that “some -of these could well be spared, but others were valuable, and their -relinquishment has impaired the power of expression of the language.” -To phonetic corruption we owe true grammatical forms, which make the -wealth of every inflective language; but it is also destructive of the -very edifice which it has helped to build. He speaks of “the legitimate -tendency to neglect and eliminate distinctions which are practically -unnecessary,” and will not admit “that we can speak our minds any -less distinctly than our ancestors could, with all their apparatus of -inflexions”; gender is a luxury which any language can well afford to -dispense with, but language is impoverished by the obliteration of -the subjunctive mood. The giving up of grammatical endings is akin to -wastefulness, and the excessive loss in English makes truly for decay -(L 31, 73, 74, 76, 77, 84, 85; G 51, 105, 104). - - -XVII.--§ 4. The Scientific Attitude. - -Why are all such expressions either of depreciation or of partial -appreciation of the modern languages so utterly unsatisfactory? One -reason is that they are so vague and dependent on a general feeling -of inferiority or the reverse, instead of being based on a detailed -comparative estimation of real facts in linguistic structure. If, -therefore, we want to arrive at a scientific answer to the question -“Decay or progress?” we must examine actual instances of changes, -but must take particular care that these instances are not chosen at -random, but are typical and characteristic of the total structure of -the languages concerned. What is wanted is not a comparison of isolated -facts, but the establishment of general laws and tendencies, for only -through such can we hope to decide whether or no we are justified in -using terms like ‘development’ and ‘evolution’ in linguistic history. - -The second reason why the earlier pronouncements quoted above do not -satisfy us is that their authors nowhere raise the question of the -method by which linguistic value is to be measured, by what standard -and what tests the comparative merits of languages or of forms are to -be ascertained. Those linguists who looked upon language as a product -of nature were by that very fact precluded from establishing a rational -basis for determining linguistic values; nor is it possible to find one -if we look at things from the one-sided point of view of the linguistic -historian. An almost comical instance of this is found when Curtius -(_Sprachwiss. u. class. phil._ 39) says that the Greek accusative -_póda_ is better than Sanskrit _padam_, because it is possible at once -to see that it belongs to the third declension. What is to be taken -into account is of course the interests of the speaking community, -and if we consistently consider language as a set of human actions -with a definite end in view, namely, the communication of thoughts -and feelings, then it becomes easy to find tests by which to measure -linguistic values, for from that point of view it is evident that THAT -LANGUAGE RANKS HIGHEST WHICH GOES FARTHEST IN THE ART OF ACCOMPLISHING -MUCH WITH LITTLE MEANS, OR, IN OTHER WORDS, WHICH IS ABLE TO EXPRESS -THE GREATEST AMOUNT OF MEANING WITH THE SIMPLEST MECHANISM. - -The estimation has to be thoroughly and frankly _anthropocentric_. -This may be a defect in other sciences, in which it is a merit on the -part of the investigator to be able to abstract himself from human -considerations; in linguistics, on the contrary, on account of the very -nature of the object of study, one must constantly look to the human -interest, and judge everything from that, and from no other, point of -view. Otherwise we run the risk of going astray in all directions. - -It will be noticed that my formula contains two requirements: it -demands a maximum of efficiency and a minimum of effort. Efficiency -means expressiveness, and effort means bodily and mental labour, and -thus the formula is simply one of modern energetics. But unfortunately -we are in possession of no method by which to measure either -expressiveness or effort exactly, and in cases of conflict it may be -difficult to decide to which of the two sides we are to attach the -greater importance, how great a surplus of efficiency is required to -counterbalance a surplus of exertion, or inversely. Still, in many -cases no doubt can arise, and we are often able to state progress, -because there is either a clear gain in efficiency or a diminution of -exertion, or both. - -There is one objection which is likely to present itself to many of my -readers, namely, that natives handle their language without the least -exertion or effort (cf. XIV § 6, p. 262). Madvig (1857, 73 ff. = Kl 260 -ff.) admits that a simplification in linguistic structure will make -the language easier to learn for foreigners, but denies that it means -increased ease for the native. Similarly Wechssler (L 149) says that -“der begriff der schwierigkeit und unbequemheit für die einheimischen -nicht existiert.” I might quote against him his countryman Gabelentz, -who expressly says that the difficulties of the German languages are -felt by natives, a view that is endorsed by Schuchardt in various -places.[80] To my mind there is not the slightest doubt that different -languages differ very much in easiness even to native speakers. In the -chapters devoted to children we have already seen that the numerous -mistakes made by them in every possible way testify to the labour -involved in learning one’s own language. This labour must naturally be -greater in the case of a highly complicated linguistic structure with -many rules and still more exceptions to the rules, than in languages -constructed simply and regularly. - -Nor is the difficulty of correct speech confined to the first mastering -of the language. Even to the native who has spoken the same language -from a child, its daily use involves no small amount of exertion. -Under ordinary circumstances he is not conscious of any exertion -in speaking; but such a want of conscious feeling is no proof that -the exertion is absent. And it is a strong argument to the contrary -that it is next to impossible for you to speak correctly if you are -suffering from excessive mental work; you will constantly make slips in -grammar and idiom as well as in pronunciation; you have not the same -command of language as under normal conditions. If you have to speak -on a difficult and unfamiliar subject, on which you would not like to -say anything but what is to the point or strictly justifiable, you -will sometimes find that the thoughts themselves claim so much mental -energy that there is none left for speaking with elegance, or even -with complete regard to grammar: to your own vexation you will have a -feeling that your phrases are confused and your language incorrect. A -pianist may practise a difficult piece of music so as to have it “at -his fingers’ ends”; under ordinary circumstances he will be able to -play it quite mechanically, without ever being conscious of effort; -but, nevertheless, the effort is there. How great the effort is appears -when some day or other the musician is ‘out of humour,’ that is, when -his brain is at work on other subjects or is not in its usual working -order. At once his execution will be stumbling and faulty. - - -XVII.--§ 5. Final Answer. - -I may here anticipate the results of the following investigation and -say that in all those instances in which we are able to examine the -history of any language for a sufficient length of time, we find that -languages have a progressive tendency. But if languages progress -towards greater perfection, it is not in a bee-line, nor are all the -changes we witness to be considered steps in the right direction. The -only thing I maintain is that _the sum total of these changes, when -we compare a remote period with the present time, shows a surplus of -progressive over retrogressive or indifferent changes_, so that the -structure of modern languages is nearer perfection than that of ancient -languages, if we take them as wholes instead of picking out at random -some one or other more or less significant detail. And of course it -must not be imagined that progress has been achieved through deliberate -acts of men conscious that they were improving their mother-tongue. -On the contrary, many a step in advance has at first been a slip -or even a blunder, and, as in other fields of human activity, good -results have only been won after a good deal of bungling and ‘muddling -along.’[81] My attitude towards this question is the same as that of -Leslie Stephen, who writes in a letter (_Life_ 454): “I have a perhaps -unreasonable amount of belief, not in a millennium, but in the world on -the whole blundering rather forwards than backwards.” - -Schleicher on one occasion used the fine simile: “Our words, as -contrasted with Gothic words, are like a statue that has been rolling -for a long time in the bed of a river till its beautiful limbs have -been worn off, so that now scarcely anything remains but a polished -stone cylinder with faint indications of what it once was” (D 34). Let -us turn the tables by asking: Suppose, however, that it would be quite -out of the question to place the statue on a pedestal to be admired; -what if, on the one hand, it was not ornamental enough as a work of -art, and if, on the other hand, human well-being was at stake if it was -not serviceable in a rolling-mill: which would then be the better--a -rugged and unwieldy statue, making difficulties at every rotation, or -an even, smooth, easygoing and well-oiled roller? - -After these preliminary considerations we may now proceed to a -comparative examination of the chief differences between ancient and -modern stages of our Western European languages. - - -XVII.--§ 6. Sounds. - -The student who goes through the chapters devoted to sound changes -in historical and comparative grammars will have great difficulty -in getting at any great lines of development or general tendencies: -everything seems just haphazard and fortuitous; a long _i_ is here -shortened and there diphthongized or lowered into _e_, etc. The history -of sounds is dependent on surroundings in many, though not in all -circumstances, but surroundings do not always act in the same way; -in short, there seem to be so many conflicting tendencies that no -universal or even general rules can be evolved from all these ‘sound -laws.’ Still less would it seem possible to state anything about the -comparative value of the forms before and after the change, for it does -not seem to matter a bit for the speaking community whether it says -_stān_ as in Old English or _stone_ as now, and thus in innumerable -cases. Nay, from one point of view it may seem that any change -militates against the object of language (cf. Wechssler L 28), but this -is true only of the very moment when the change sets in while people -are accustomed to the old sound (or the old signification), and even -then the change is only injurious provided it impedes understanding or -renders understanding less easy, which is far from always being the -case. - -There is one scholar who has asserted the existence of a universal -progressive tendency in languages, or, as he calls it, a humanization -of language, namely Baudouin de Courtenay (_Vermenschlichung der -Sprache_, 1893). He is chiefly thinking of the sound system,[82] and he -maintains that there is a tendency towards eliminating the innermost -articulations and using instead sounds that are formed nearer to the -teeth and lips. Thus some back (postpalatal, velar) consonants become -_p_, _b_, while others develop into _s_ sounds; cf. Slav _slovo_ -‘word’ with Lat. _cluo_, etc. Baudouin also mentions the frequent -palatalization of back consonants, as in French and Italian _ce_, _ci_, -_ge_, _gi_, but as this is due to the influence of the following front -vowel, it should not perhaps be mentioned as a universal tendency of -human language. It is further said that throat sounds, which play -such a great rôle in Semitic languages, have been discarded in most -modern languages. But it may be objected that sometimes throat sounds -do develop in modern periods, as in the Danish ‘stød’ and in English -dialectal _bu’er_ for _butter_, etc. A universal tendency of sounds -to move away from the throat cannot be said to be firmly established; -but for our purpose it is more important to say that even were it -true, the value of such a tendency for the speaking community would -not be great enough to justify us in speaking of progress towards a -truly ‘human’ language as opposed to the more beastlike language of -our primeval ancestors. It is true that Baudouin (p. 25) says that it -is possible to articulate in the front and upper part with less effort -and with greater precision than in the interior and lower parts of -the speaking apparatus, but if this is true with regard to the mouth -proper, it cannot be maintained with regard to the vocal chords, where -very important effects may be produced in the most precise way by -infinitely little exertion. Thus in no single point can I see that -Baudouin de Courtenay has made out a strong case for _his_ conception -of ‘humanization of language.’ - - -XVII.--§ 7. Shortenings. - -But there is another phonetic tendency which is much more universal -and infinitely more valuable than the one asserted by Baudouin de -Courtenay, namely, the tendency to shorten words. Words get shorter -and shorter in consequence of a great many of those changes that we -see constantly going on in all languages: vowels in weak syllables are -pronounced more and more indistinctly and finally disappear altogether, -as when OE. _lufu_, _stānas_, _sende_, through ME. _luve_, _stanes_, -_sende_ with pronounced _e_’s, have become our modern monosyllables -_love_, _stones_, _send_, or when Latin _bonum_, _homo_, _viginti_ -have become Fr. _bon_, _on_, _vingt_, and Lat. _bona_, _hominem_, -Fr. _bonne_, _homme_, where the vowel was kept, because it was _a_ -or protected by the consonant group, but has now also disappeared in -normal pronunciation. Final vowels have been dropped extensively in -Danish and German dialects, and so have the _u_’s and _i_’s in Russian, -which are now kept in the spelling merely as signs of the quality of -the preceding consonant. It would be easy to multiply instances. Nor -are the consonants more stable; the dropping of final ones is seen most -easily in Modern French, because they are retained in spelling, as in -_tout_, _vers_, _champ_, _chant_, etc. In the two last examples two -consonants have disappeared, the _m_ and _n_, however, leaving a trace -in the nasalized pronunciation of the vowel, as also in _bon_, _nom_, -etc. Final _r_ and _l_ often disappear in Fr. words like _quatre_, -_simple_, and medial consonants have been dropped in such cases as -_côte_ from _coste_, _bête_ from _beste_, _sauf_ [so·f] from _salvo_, -etc. We have corresponding omissions in English, where in very old -times _n_ was dropped in such cases as _us_, _five_, _other_, while -the German forms _uns_, _fünf_, _ander_ have kept the old consonants; -in more recent times _l_ was dropped in _half_, _calm_, etc., _gh_ [x] -in _light_, _bought_, etc., and _r_ in the prevalent pronunciation of -_warm_, _part_, etc. Initial consonants are more firmly fixed in many -languages, yet we see them lost in the E. combinations _kn_, _gn_, -_wr_, where _k_, _g_, _w_ used to be sounded, e.g. in _know_, _gnaw_, -_wrong_. Consonant assimilation means in most cases the same thing as -dropping of one consonant, for no trace of the consonant is left, at -any rate after the compensating lengthening has been given up, as is -often the case, e.g. in E. _cupboard_, _blackguard_ [kʌbəd, blæga·d]. - -So far we have given instances of what might be called the most regular -or constant types of phonetic change leading to shorter forms; but -the same result is the natural outcome of a process which occurs more -sporadically. This is haplology, by which one sound or one group of -sounds is pronounced once only instead of twice, the hearer taking it -through a kind of acoustic delusion as belonging both to what precedes -and to what follows. Examples are _a goo(d) deal_, _wha(t) to do_, -_nex(t) time_, _simp(le)ly_, _England_ from _Englaland_, _eighteen_ -from OE. _eahtatiene_, _honesty_ from _honestete_, _Glou(ce)ster_, -_Worcester_ [wustə], familiarly _pro(ba)bly_, vulgarly _lib(ra)ry_, -_Febr(uar)y_. From other languages may be quoted Fr. _cont(re)rôle_, -_ido(lo)lâtre_, _Neu(ve)ville_, Lat. _nu(tri)trix_, _sti(pi)pendium_, -It. _qual(che)cosa_, _cosa_ for _che cosa_, etc. (Cf. my LPh 11. 9.) - -The accumulation through centuries of such influences results in those -instances of seemingly violent contractions with which every student of -historical linguistics is familiar. One classical example has already -been mentioned above, E. _had_, corresponding to Gothic _habaidedeima_; -other examples are _lord_, with its three or four sounds, which was -formerly _laverd_, and in Old English _hlāford_; the old Gothonic form -of the same word contained indubitably as many as twelve sounds; Latin -_augustum_ has in French through _aoust_ become _août_, pronounced [au] -or even [u]; Latin _oculum_ has shrunk into four sounds in Italian -_occhio_, three in Spanish _ojo_, and two in Fr. _œil_; It. _medesimo_, -Sp. _mismo_ and Fr. _même_ represent various stages of the shrinking of -Lat. _metipsimum_; cf. also Fr. _ménage_ from _mansion-_ + _-aticum_. -Primitive Norse _ne veit ek hvat_ ‘not know I what’ has become Dan. -_noget_ ‘something,’ often pronounced [no·ð] or [nɔ·ð]. - -In all these cases the shortening process has taken centuries, but -we have other instances in which it has come about quite suddenly, -without any intermediate stages, namely, in those stump-words which -we have already considered (Ch. IX § 7; cf. XIV § 12 on corresponding -syntactical shortenings). - - -XVII.--§ 8. Objections. Result. - -There cannot therefore be the slightest doubt that the general -tendency of all languages is towards shorter and shorter forms: the -ancient languages of our family, Sanskrit, Zend, etc., abound in -very long words; the further back we go, the greater the number of -_sesquipedalia_. It cannot justly be objected that we see sometimes -examples of phonetic lengthenings, as in E. _sound_ from ME. _soun_, -Fr. _son_, E. _whilst_, _amongst_ from ME. _whiles_, _amonges_; -a similar excrescence of _t_ after _s_ is seen in G. _obst_, -_pabst_, Swed. _eljest_ and others; after _n_, _t_ is added in G. -_jemand_, _niemand_ (two syllables, while there is nothing added to -the trisyllabic _jedermann_)--for even if such instances might be -multiplied, their number and importance is infinitely smaller than -those in the opposite direction. (On the seeming insertion of _d_ in -_ndr_, see p. 264, note). In some cases we witness a certain reaction -against word forms that are felt to be too short and therefore too -indistinct (see Ch. XV § 1, XX § 9), but on the whole such instances -are few and far between: the prevailing tendency is towards shorter -forms. - -Another objection must be dealt with here. It is said that it is only -the purely phonetic development that tends to make words shorter, -but that in languages as wholes words do not become shorter, because -non-phonetic forces counteract the tendency. In modern languages we -thus have some analogical formations which are longer than the forms -they have supplanted, as when _books_ has one sound more than OE. -_bēc_, or when G. _bewegte_ takes the place of _bewog_. Further, we -have in modern languages many auxiliary words (prepositions, modal -verbs) in places where they were formerly not required. That this -objection is not valid if we take the whole of the language into -consideration may perhaps be proved statistically if we compute the -length of the same long text in various languages: the Gospel of St. -Matthew contains in Greek about 39,000 syllables, in Swedish about -35,000, in German 33,000, in Danish 32,500, in English 29,000, and in -Chinese only 17,000 (the figures for the Authorized English Version -and for Danish are my own calculation; the other figures I take from -Tegnér SM 51, Hoops in _Anglia_, _Beiblatt_ 1896, 293, and Sturtevant -LCh 175). In comparing these figures it should even be taken into -consideration that translations naturally tend to be more long-winded -and verbose than the original, so that the real gain in shortness may -be greater than indicated.[83] - -Next, we come to consider the question whether the tendency towards -shorter forms is a valuable asset in the development of languages or -the reverse. The answer cannot be doubtful. Take the old example, -English _had_ and Gothic _habaidedeima_: the English form is -preferable, on the principle that anyone who has to choose between -walking one mile and four miles will, other things being equal, prefer -the shorter cut. It is true that if we take words to be self-existing -natural objects, _habaidedeima_ has the air of a giant and _had_ of -a mere pigmy: this valuation lies at the bottom of many utterances -even by recent linguistic thinkers, as when Sweet (H 10) speaks of -the vanishing of sounds as “a purely destructive change.” But if we -adopt the anthropocentric standard which has been explained above, and -realize that what we call a word is really and primarily the combined -action of human muscles to produce an audible effect, we see that the -shortening of a form means a diminution of effort and a saving of time -in the communication of our thoughts. If, as it is said, _had_ has -suffered from wear and tear in the long course of time, this means that -the wear and tear of people now using this form in their speech is less -than if they were still encumbered with the old giant _habaidedeima_. -Voltaire was certainly very wide of the mark when he wrote: “C’est le -propre des barbares d’abréger les mots”--long and clumsy words are -rather to be considered as signs of barbarism, and short and nimble -ones as signs of advanced culture. - -Though I thus hold that the development towards shorter forms of -expression is _on the whole_ progressive, i.e. beneficial, I should not -like to be too dogmatic on this point and assert that it is _always_ -beneficial: shortness may be carried to excess and thus cause obscurity -or difficulty of understanding. This may be seen in the telegraphic -style as well as in the literary style of some writers too anxious to -avoid prolixity (some of Pope’s lines might be quoted in illustration -of the classical: brevis esse laboro, obscurus fio). But in the case of -the language of a whole community the danger certainly is very small -indeed, for there will always be a natural and wholesome reaction -against such excessive shortness. There is another misunderstanding -I want to guard against when saying that the shortening makes on the -whole for progress. It must not be thought that I lay undue stress on -this point, which is after all chiefly concerned with a greater or -smaller amount of physical or muscular exertion: this should neither be -underrated nor overrated; but it will be seen that neither in my former -work nor in this does the consideration of this point of mere shortness -or length take up more than a fraction of the space allotted to the -more psychical sides of the question, to which we shall now turn our -attention and to which I attach much more importance. - - -XVII.--§ 9. Verbal Forms. - -We may here recur to Schleicher’s example, E. _had_ and Gothic -_habaidedeima_. It is not only in regard to economy of muscular -exertion that the former carries the day over the latter. _Had_ -corresponds not only to _habaidedeima_, but it unites in one short form -everything expressed by the Gothic _habaida_, _habaides_, _habaidedu_, -_habaideduts_, _habaidedum_, _habaideduþ_, _habaidedun_, _habaidedjau_, -_habaidedeis_, _habaidedi_, _habaidedeiwa_, _habaidedeits_, -_habaidedeima_, _habaidedeiþ_, _habaidedeina_--separate forms for -two or three persons in three numbers in two distinct moods! It is -clear, therefore, that the English form saves a considerable amount -of brainwork to all English-speaking people--not only to children, -who have fewer forms to learn, but also to adults, who have fewer -forms to choose between and to keep distinct whenever they open their -mouths to speak. Someone might, perhaps, say that on the other hand -English people are obliged always to join personal pronouns to their -verbal forms to indicate the person, and that this is a drawback -counterbalancing the advantage, so that the net result is six of -one and half a dozen of the other. This, however, would be a very -superficial objection. For, in the first place, the personal pronouns -are the same for all tenses and moods, but the endings are not. -Secondly, the possession of endings does not exempt the Goths from -having separate personal pronouns; and whenever these are used, as is -very often the case in the first and second persons, those parts of -the verbal endings which indicate persons are superfluous. They are -no less superfluous in those extremely numerous cases in which the -subject is either separately expressed by a noun or is understood from -the preceding proposition, thus in the vast majority of the cases of -the third person. If we compare a few pages of Old English prose with -a modern rendering we shall see that in spite of the reduction in the -latter of the person-indicating endings, personal pronouns are not -required in any great number of sentences in which they were dispensed -with in Old English. So that, altogether, the numerous endings of the -older languages must be considered uneconomical. - -If Gothic, Latin and Greek, etc., burden the memory by the number -of their flexional endings, they do so even more by the many -irregularities in the formation of these endings. In all the languages -of this type, anomaly and flexion invariably go together. The -intricacies of verbal flexion in Latin and Greek are well known, and -it requires no small amount of mental energy to master the various -modes of forming the present stems in Sanskrit--to take only one -instance. Many of these irregularities disappear in course of time, -chiefly, but not exclusively, through analogical formations, and though -it is true that a certain number of new irregularities may come into -existence, their number is relatively small when compared with those -that have been removed. Now, it is not only the forms themselves that -are irregular in the early languages, but also their uses: logical -simplicity prevails much more in Modern English syntax than in either -Old English or Latin or Greek. But it is hardly necessary to point out -that growing regularity in a language means a considerable gain to all -those who learn it or speak it. - -It has been said, however, by one of the foremost authorities on the -history of English, that “in spite of the many changes which this -system [i.e. the complicated system of strong verbs] has undergone -in detail, it remains just as intricate as it was in Old English” -(Bradley, _The Making of English_ 51). It is true that the way in -which vowel change is utilized to form tenses is rather complicated -in Modern English (_drink_ _drank_, _give_ _gave_, _hold_ _held_, -etc.), but otherwise an enormous simplification has taken place. The -personal endings have been discarded with the exception of _-s_ in -the third person singular of the present (and the obsolete ending -_-est_ in the second person, and then this has been regularized, -_thou sangest_ having taken the place of _þu sunge_); the change of -vowel in _ic sang_, _þu sunge_, _we sungon_ in the indicative and _ic -sunge_, _we sungen_ in the subjunctive has been given up, and so has -the accompanying change of consonant in many cases. Thus, instead of -the following forms, _cēosan_, _cēose_, _cēoseþ_, _cēosaþ_, _cēosen_, -_cēas_, _curon_, _cure_, _curen_, _coren_, we have the following modern -ones, which are both fewer in number and less irregular: _choose_, -_chooses_, _chose_, _chosen_--certainly an advance from a more to a -less intricate system (cf. GS § 178). - -An extreme, but by no means unique example of the simplification found -in modern languages is the English _cut_, which can serve both as -present and past tense, both as singular and plural, both in the first, -second and third persons, both in the infinitive, in the imperative, -in the indicative, in the subjunctive, and as a past (or passive) -participle; compare with this the old languages with their separate -forms for different tenses, moods, numbers and persons; and remember, -moreover, that the identical form, without any inconvenience being -occasioned, is also used as a noun (_a cut_), and you will admire the -economy of the living tongue. A characteristic feature of the structure -of languages in their early stages is that each form contains in -itself several minor modifications which are often in the later stages -expressed separately by means of auxiliary words. Such a word as Latin -_cantavisset_ unites into one inseparable whole the equivalents of six -ideas: (1) ‘sing,’ (2) pluperfect, (3) that indefinite modification -of the verbal idea which we term subjunctive, (4) active, (5) third -person, and (6) singular. - - -XVII.--§ 10. Synthesis and Analysis. - -Such a form, therefore, is much more concrete than the forms found in -modern languages, of which sometimes two or more have to be combined -to express the composite notion which was rendered formerly by one. -Now, it is one of the consequences of this change that it has become -easier to express certain minute, but by no means unimportant, shades -of thought by laying extra stress on some particular element in the -speech-group. Latin _cantaveram_ amalgamates into one indissoluble -whole what in E. _I had sung_ is analysed into three components, so -that you can at will accentuate the personal element, the time element -or the action. Now, it is possible (who can affirm and who can deny -it?) that the Romans could, if necessary, make some difference in -speech between _cántaveram_ (non saltaveram) ‘I had _sung_,’ and -_cantaverám_ (non cantabam), ‘I _had_ sung’; but even then, if it was -the personal element which was to be emphasized, an _ego_ had to be -added. Even the possibility of laying stress on the temporal element -broke down in forms like _scripsi_, _minui_, _sum_, _audiam_, and -innumerable others. It seems obvious that the freedom of Latin in -this respect must have been inferior to that of English. Moreover, -in English, the three elements, ‘I,’ ‘had,’ and ‘sung,’ can in -certain cases be arranged in a different order, and other words can -be inserted between them in order to modify and qualify the meaning -of the sentence. Note also the conciseness of such answers as “Who -had sung?” “I had.” “What had you done?” “Sung.” “I believe he has -enjoyed himself.” “I know he has.” And contrast the Latin “Cantaveram -et saltaveram et luseram et riseram” with the English “I had sung and -danced and played and laughed.” What would be the Latin equivalent of -“Tom never _did_ and never _will_ beat me”? - -In such cases, analysis means suppleness, and synthesis means rigidity; -in analytic languages you have the power of kaleidoscopically arranging -and rearranging the elements that in synthetic forms like _cantaveram_ -are in rigid connexion and lead a Siamese-twin sort of existence. The -synthetic forms of Latin verbs remind one of those languages all over -the world (North America, South America, Hottentot, etc.) in which such -ideas as ‘father’ or ‘mother’ or ‘head’ or ‘eye’ cannot be expressed -separately, but only in connexion with an indication of _whose_ -father, etc., one is speaking about: in one language the verbal idea -(in the finite moods), in the other the nominal idea, is necessarily -fused with the personal idea. - - -XVII.--§ 11. Verbal Concord. - -This formal inseparability of subordinate elements is at the root -of those rules of concord which play such a large rôle in the older -languages of our Aryan family, but which tend to disappear in the -more recent stages. By concord we mean the fact that a secondary word -(adjective or verb) is made to agree with the primary word (substantive -or subject) to which it belongs. Verbal concord, by which a verb is -governed in number and person by the subject, has disappeared from -spoken Danish, where, for instance, the present tense of the verb -meaning ‘to travel’ is uniformly _rejser_ in all persons of both -numbers; while the written language till towards the end of the -nineteenth century kept up artificially the plural _rejse_, although -it had been dead in the spoken language for some three hundred years. -The old flexion is an article of luxury, as a modification of the idea -belonging properly to the subject is here transferred to the predicate, -where it has no business; for when we say ‘mændene rejse’ (die männer -reisen), we do not mean to imply that they undertake several journeys -(cf. Madvig Kl 28, _Nord. tsk. f. filol._, n.r. 8. 134). - -By getting rid of this superfluity, Danish has got the start of the -more archaic of its Aryan sister-tongues. Even English, which has -in most respects gone farthest in simplifying its flexional system, -lags here behind Danish, in that in the present tense of most verbs -the third person singular deviates from the other persons by ending -in _-s_, and the verb _be_ preserves some other traces of the old -concord system, not to speak of the form in _-st_ used with _thou_ in -the language of religion and poetry. Small and unimportant as these -survivals may seem, still they are in some instances impediments to -the free and easy expression of thought. In Danish, for instance, -there is not the slightest difficulty in saying ‘enten du eller jeg -har uret,’ as _har_ is used both in the first and second persons -singular and plural. But when an Englishman tries to render the same -simple sentiment he is baffled; ‘either you or I _are_ wrong’ is felt -to be incorrect, and so is ‘either you or I _am_ wrong’; he might say -‘either you are wrong, or I,’ but then this manner of putting it, if -grammatically admissible (with or without the addition of _am_), is -somewhat stiff and awkward; and there is no perfectly natural way out -of the difficulty, for Dean Alford’s proposal to say ‘either you or I -_is_ wrong’ (_The Queen’s Engl._ 155) is not to be recommended. The -advantage of having verbal forms that are no respecters of persons is -seen directly in such perfectly natural expressions as ‘either you or -I must be wrong,’ or ‘either you or I may be wrong,’ or ‘either you or -I began it’--and indirectly from the more or less artificial rules of -Latin and Greek grammars on this point; in the following passages the -Gordian knot is cut in different ways: - -Shakespeare _LLL_ V. 2. 346 Nor God, nor I, _delights_ in perjur’d men -| id. _As_ I. 3. 99 Thou and I _am_ one | Tennyson _Poet. W._ 369 For -whatsoever knight against us came Or I or he _have_ easily overthrown -| Galsworthy _D_ 30 _Am_ I and all women really what they think us? | -Shakespeare _H4B_ IV. 2. 121 Heauen, and not wee, _haue_ safely fought -to day (Folio, where the Quarto has: God, and not wee, _hath_....) - -The same difficulty often appears in relative clauses; Alford (l.c. -152) calls attention to the fact of the Prayer Book reading “Thou art -the God that _doeth_ wonders,” whereas the Bible version runs “Thou art -the God that _doest_ wonders.” Compare also: - -Shakespeare _As_ III. 5. 55 ’Tis not her glasse, but you that -_flatters_ her | id. _Meas._ II. 2. 80 It is the law, not I, _condemne_ -your brother | Carlyle _Fr. Rev._ 38, There is none but you and I that -_has_ the people’s interest at heart (translated from: Il n’y a que -vous et moi qui _aimions_ le peuple). - -In all such cases the construction in Danish is as easy and natural -as it generally is in the English preterit: “It was not her glass, -but you that flattered her.” The disadvantage of having verbal forms -which enforce the indication of person and number is perhaps seen most -strikingly in a French sentence like this from Romain Rolland’s _Jean -Christophe_ (7. 221): “Ce mot, naturellement, ce n’est ni toi, ni moi, -qui _pouvons_ le dire”--the verb agrees with that which _cannot_ be the -subject (we)! For what is meant is really: ‘celui qui peut le dire, ce -n’est ni moi ni toi.’ - -FOOTNOTES: - -[79] Quoted here from John Wilkins, _An Essay towards a Real Character -and a Philosophical Language_, 1668, p. 448: Wilkins there subjects -Bacon’s saying to a crushing criticism, laying bare a great many -radical deficiencies in Latin to bring out the logical advantages of -his own artificial ‘philosophical’ language. - -[80] Cf. also what Paul says (P 144) about one point in German grammar -(strong and weak forms of adjectives): “But the difficulty of the -correct maintenance of the distinction is shown in numerous offences -made by writers against the rules of grammar”--of course, not only by -writers, but by ordinary speakers as well. - -[81] It has often been pointed out how Great Britain has ‘blundered’ -into creating her world-wide Empire, and Gretton, in _The King’s -Government_ (1914), applies the same view to the development of -governmental institutions. - -[82] In the realm of significations he sees the ‘humanization’ of -language exclusively in the development of abstract terms. An important -point of disagreement between Baudouin and myself is in regard to -morphology, where he sees only ‘oscillations’ in historical times, in -which he is unable to discover a continuous movement in any definite -direction, while I maintain that languages here manifest a definite -progressive tendency. - -[83] On the other hand, it is not, perhaps, fair to count the number of -_syllables_, as these may vary very considerably, and some languages -favour syllables with heavy consonant groups unknown in other tongues. -The most rational measure of length would be to count the numbers of -distinct (not sounds, but) articulations of separate speech organs--but -that task is at any rate beyond _my_ powers. - - - - -CHAPTER XVIII - -PROGRESS - - § 1. Nominal Forms. § 2. Irregularities Original. § 3. Syntax. § 4. - Objections. § 5. Word Order. § 6. Gender. § 7. Nominal Concord. § 8. - The English Genitive. § 9. Bantu Concord. § 10. Word Order Again. - § 11. Compromises. § 12. Order Beneficial? § 13. Word Order and - Simplification. § 14. Summary. - - -XVIII.--§ 1. Nominal Forms. - -In the flexion of substantives and adjectives we see phenomena -corresponding to those we have just been considering in the verbs. -The ancient languages of our family have several forms where modern -languages content themselves with fewer; forms originally kept distinct -are in course of time confused, either through a phonetic obliteration -of differences in the endings or through analogical extension of the -functions of one form. The single form _good_ is now used where OE. -used the forms _god_, _godne_, _gode_, _godum_, _godes_, _godre_, -_godra_, _goda_, _godan_, _godena_; Ital. _uomo_ or French _homme_ is -used for Lat. _homo_, _hominem_, _homini_, _homine_--nay, if we take -the spoken form into consideration, Fr. [ɔm] corresponds not only -to these Latin forms, but also to _homines_, _hominibus_. Where the -modern language has one or two cases, in an earlier stage it had three -or four, and still earlier seven or eight. The difficulties inherent -in the older system cannot, however, be measured adequately by the -number of forms each word is susceptible of, but are multiplied by the -numerous differences in the formation of the same case in different -classes of declension; sometimes we even find anomalies which affect -one word only. - -Those who would be inclined to maintain that new irregularities may -and do arise in modern languages which make up for whatever earlier -irregularities have been discarded in the course of the historical -development will do well to compile a systematic list of _all_ the -flexional forms of two different stages of the same languages, arranged -exactly according to the same principles: this is the only way in which -it is possible really to balance losses and profits in a language. -This is what I have done in my _Progress in Language_ § 111 ff. -(reprinted in ChE § 9 ff.), where I have contrasted the case systems -of Old and Modern English: the result is that the former system takes -7 (+ 3) pages, and the latter only 2 pages. Those pages, with their -abbreviations and tabulations, do not, perhaps, offer very entertaining -reading, but I think they are more illustrative of the real tendencies -of language than either isolated examples or abstract reasonings, and -they cannot fail to convince any impartial reader of the enormous gain -achieved through the changes of the intervening nine hundred years in -the general structure of the English language. - -For our general purposes it will be worth our while here to quote what -Friedrich Müller (Gr i. 2. 7) says about a totally different language: -“Even if the Hottentot distinguishes ‘he,’ ‘she’ and ‘it,’ and strictly -separates the singular from the plural number, yet by his expressing -‘he’ and ‘she’ by one sound in the third person, and by another in -the second, he manifests that he has no perception at all of our two -grammatical categories of gender and number, and consequently those -elements of his language that run parallel to our signs of gender and -number must be of an entirely different nature.” Fr. Müller should -not perhaps throw too many stones at the poor Hottentots, for his own -native tongue is no better than a glass house, and we might with equal -justice say, for instance: “As the Germans express the plural number -in different manners in words like _gott--götter_, _hand--hände_, -_vater--väter_, _frau--frauen_, etc., they must be entirely lacking in -the sense of the category of number.” Or let us take such a language as -Latin; there is nothing to show that _dominus_ bears the same relation -to _domini_ as _verbum_ to _verba_, _urbs_ to _urbes_, _mensis_ to -_menses_, _cornu_ to _cornua_, _fructus_ to _fructūs_, etc.; even in -the same word the idea of plurality is not expressed by the same method -for all the cases, as is shown by a comparison of _dominus--domini_, -_dominum--dominos_, _domino--dominis_, _domini--dominorum_. Fr. Müller -is no doubt wrong in saying that such anomalies preclude the speakers -of the language from conceiving the notion of plurality; but, on the -other hand, it seems evident that a language in which a difference so -simple even to the understanding of very young children as that between -one and more than one can only be expressed by a complicated apparatus -must rank lower than another language in which this difference has a -single expression for all cases in which it occurs. In this respect, -too, Modern English stands higher than the oldest English, Latin or -Hottentot. - - -XVIII.--§ 2. Irregularities Original. - -It was the belief of the older school of comparativists that each -case had originally one single ending, which was added to all -nouns indifferently (e.g. _-as_ for the genitive sg.), and that the -irregularities found in the existing oldest languages were of later -growth; the actually existing forms were then derived from the supposed -unity form by all kinds of phonetic tricks and dodges. Now people have -begun to see that the primeval language cannot have been quite uniform -and regular (see, for instance, Walde in Streitberg’s _Gesch._, 2. -194 ff.). If we look at facts, and not at imagined or reconstructed -forms, we are forced to acknowledge that in the oldest stages of our -family of languages not only did the endings present the spectacle of -a motley variety, but the kernel of the word was also often subject -to violent changes in different cases, as when it had in different -forms different accentuation and (or) different apophony, or as when -in some of the most frequently occurring words some cases were formed -from one ‘stem’ and others from another, for instance, the nominative -from an _r_ stem and the oblique cases from an _n_ stem. In the common -word for ‘water’ Greek has preserved both stems, nom. _hudōr_, gen. -_hudatos_, where _a_ stands for original [ən]. Whatever the origin -of this change of stems, it is a phenomenon belonging to the earlier -stages of our languages, in which we also sometimes find an alteration -between the _r_ stem in the nominative and a combination of the _n_ -and the _r_ stems in the other cases, as in Lat. _jecur_ ‘liver,’ -_jecinoris_; _iter_ ‘voyage,’ _itineris_, which is supposed to have -supplanted _itinis_, formed like _feminis_ from _femur_. In the later -stages we always find a simplification, one single form running through -all cases; this is either the nominative stem, as in E. _water_, G. -_wasser_ (corresponding to Gr. _hudōr_), or the oblique case-stem, -as in the Scandinavian forms, Old Norse _vatn_, Swed. _vatten_, Dan. -_vand_ (corresponding to Gr. _hudat-_), or finally a contaminated form, -as in the name of the Swedish lake _Vättern_ (Noreen’s explanation), -or in Old Norse and Dan. _skarn_ ‘dirt,’ which has its _r_ from a form -like the Gr. _skōr_, and its _n_ from a form like the Gr. genitive -_skatos_ (older [skəntos]). The simplification is carried furthest in -English, where the identical form _water_ is not only used unchanged -where in the older languages different case forms would have been used -(‘the water is cold,’ ‘the surface of the water,’ ‘he fell into the -water,’ ‘he swims in the water’), but also serves as a verb (‘did you -water the flowers?’), and as an adjunct as a quasi-adjective (‘a water -melon,’ ‘water plants’). - -In most cases irregularities have been done away with in the way here -indicated, one of the forms (or stems) being generalized; but in other -cases it may have happened, as Kretschmer supposes (in Gercke and -Norden, _Einleit. in die Altertumswiss._, I, 501) that irregular flexion -caused a word to go out of use entirely; thus in Modern Greek _hêpar_ -was supplanted by _sukōti_,[84] _phréar_ by _pēgadi_, _húdōr_ by -_neró_, _oûs_ by _aphtí_ (= _ōtíon_), _kúōn_ by _skullí_; this possibly -also accounts for _commando_ taking the place of Lat. _jubeo_. - -Some scholars maintain that the medieval languages were more regular -than their modern representatives; but if we look more closely into -what they mean, we shall see that they are not speaking of any -regularity in the sense in which the word has here been used--the only -regularity which is of importance to the speakers of the language--but -of the regular correspondence of a language with some earlier language -from which it is derived. This is particularly the case with E. -Littré, who, in his essays on _L’Histoire de la Langue Française_, -was full of enthusiasm for Old French, but chiefly for the fidelity -with which it had preserved some features of Latin. There was thus the -old distinction of two cases: nom. sg. _murs_, acc. sg. _mur_, and -in the plural inversely nom. _mur_ and acc. _murs_, with its exact -correspondence with Latin _murus_, _murum_, pl. _muri_, _muros_. When -this ‘règle de _l_’s’ was discovered, and the use or omission of _s_, -which had hitherto been looked upon as completely arbitrary in Old -French, was thus accounted for, scholars were apt to consider this as -an admirable trait in the old language which had been lost in modern -French, and the same view obtained with regard to the case distinction -found in other words, such as OFr. nom. _maire_, acc. _majeur_, or nom. -_emperere_, acc. _emperëur_, corresponding to the Latin forms with -changing stress, _májor_, _majórem_, _imperátor_, _imperatórem_, etc. -But, however interesting such things may be to the historical linguist, -there is no denying that to the users of French the modern simpler -flexion is a gain as compared with this more complex system. “Des -sprachhistorikers freud ist des sprachbrauchers leid,” as Schuchardt -somewhere shrewdly remarks. - - -XVIII.--§ 3. Syntax. - -There were also in the old languages many irregularities in the -syntactic use of the cases, as when some verbs governed the genitive -and others the dative, etc. Even if it may be possible in many -instances to account historically for these uses, to the speakers of -the languages they must have appeared to be mere caprices which had -to be learned separately for each verb, and it is therefore a great -advantage when they have been gradually done away with, as has been -the case, to a great extent, even in a language like German, which has -retained many old case forms. Thus verbs like _entbehren_, _vergessen_, -_bedürfen_, _wahrnehmen_, which formerly took the genitive, are now -used more and more with the simple accusative--a simplification which, -among other things, makes the construction of sentences in the passive -voice easier and more regular. - -The advantage of discarding the old case distinctions is seen in the -ease with which English and French speakers can say, e.g., ‘with or -without my hat,’ or ‘in and round the church,’ while the correct -German is ‘mit meinem hut oder ohne denselben’ and ‘in der kirche und -um dieselbe’; Wackernagel writes: “Was in ihm und um ihn und über -ihm ist.” When the prepositions are followed by a single substantive -without case distinction, German, of course, has the same simple -construction as English, e.g. ‘mit oder ohne geld,’ and sometimes -even good writers will let themselves go and write ‘um und neben dem -hochaltare’ (Goethe), or ‘Ihre tochter wird meine frau mit oder gegen -ihren willen’ (these examples from Curme, _German Grammar_ 191). Cf. -also: ‘Ich kann deinem bruder nicht helfen und ihn unterstützen.’ - -Many extremely convenient idioms unknown in the older synthetic -languages have been rendered possible in English through the doing away -with the old case distinctions, such as: Genius, demanding bread, is -given a stone after its possessor’s death (Shaw) (cf. my ChE § 79) | he -was offered, and declined, the office of poet-laureate (Gosse) | the -lad was spoken highly of | I love, and am loved by, my wife | these -laws my readers, whom I consider as my subjects, are bound to believe -in and to obey (Fielding) | he was heathenishly inclined to believe in, -or to worship, the goddess Nemesis (id.) | he rather rejoiced in, than -regretted, his bruise (id.) | many a dun had she talked to, and turned -away from her father’s door (Thackeray) | their earthly abode, which -has seen, and seemed almost to sympathize in, all their honour (Ruskin). - - -XVIII.--§ 4. Objections. - -Against my view of the superiority of languages with few case -distinctions, Arwid Johannson, in a very able article (in IF I, see -especially p. 247 f.), has adduced a certain number of ambiguous -sentences from German: - - Soweit die deutsche zunge klingt und _gott_ im himmel lieder singt - (is _gott_ nominative or dative?) | Seinem landsmann, dem er in - seiner ganzen bildung ebensoviel verdankte, wie _Goethe_ (nominative - or dative?) | Doch würde die gesellschaft _der Indierin_ (genitive - or dative?) lästig gewesen sein | Darin hat Caballero wohl nur einen - konkurrenten, die Eliot, _welche_ freilich _die spanische dichterin_ - nicht ganz erreicht | Nur Diopeithes feindet insgeheim dich an und - _die schwester_ des Kimon und _dein weib_ Telesippa. (In the last two - sentences what is the subject, and what the object?) - -According to Johannson, these passages show the disadvantages of doing -away with formal distinctions, for the sentences would have been clear -if each separate case had had its distinctive sign; “the greater the -wealth of forms, the more intelligible the speech.” And they show, he -says, that such ambiguities will occur, even where the strictest rules -of word order are observed. I shall not urge that this is not exactly -the case in the last sentence if _die schwester_ and _dein weib_ are to -be taken as accusatives, for then _an_ should have been placed at the -very end of the sentence; nor that, in the last sentence but one, the -mention of George Eliot as the ‘konkurrent’ of Fernan Caballero seems -to show a partiality to the Spanish authoress on the part of the writer -of the sentence, so that the reader is prepared to take _welche_ as the -nominative case; _freilich_ would seem to point in the same direction. -But these, of course, are only trifling objections; the essential point -is that we must grant the truth of Johannson’s contention that we have -here a flaw in the German language; the defects of its grammatical -system may and do cause a certain number of ambiguities. Neither is -it difficult to find the reasons of these defects by considering the -structure of the language in its entirety, and by translating the -sentences in question into a few other languages and comparing the -results. - -First, with regard to the formal distinctions between cases, the really -weak point cannot be the fewness of these endings, for in that case -we should expect the same sort of ambiguities to be very common in -English and Danish, where the formal case distinctions are considerably -fewer than in German; but as a matter of fact such ambiguities are -more frequent in German than in the other two languages. And, however -paradoxical it may seem at first sight, one of the causes of this is -the greater wealth of grammatical forms in German. Let us substitute -other words for the ambiguous ones, and we shall see that the -amphibology will nearly always disappear, because most other words will -have different forms in the two cases, e.g.: - - Soweit die deutsche zunge klingt und _dem allmächtigen_ (or, _der - allmächtige_) lieder singt | Seinem landsmann, dem er ebensoviel - verdankte, wie _dem grossen dichter_ (or, _der grosse dichter_) | - Doch würde die gesellschaft _des Indiers_ (or, _dem Indier_) lästig - gewesen sein | Darin hat Calderon wohl nur einen konkurrenten, - Shakespeare, _welcher_ freilich _den spanischen dichter_ nicht - erreicht (or, _den_ ... _der spanische dichter_ ...) | Nur Diopeithes - feindet dich insgeheim an, und _der bruder_ des Kimon und _sein - freund_ T. (or, _den bruder_ ... _seinen freund_). - -It is this very fact that countless sentences of this sort are -perfectly clear which leads to the employment of similar constructions -even where the resulting sentence is by no means clear; but if all, -or most, words were identical in the nominative and the dative, -like _gott_, or in the dative and genitive, like _der Indierin_, -constructions like those used would be impossible to imagine in a -language meant to be an intelligible vehicle of thought. And so the -ultimate cause of the ambiguities is the inconsistency in the formation -of the several cases. But this inconsistency is found in all the old -languages of the Aryan family: cases which in one gender or with one -class of stems are kept perfectly distinct, are in others identical. -I take some examples from Latin, because this is perhaps the best -known language of this type, but Gothic or Old Slavonic would show -inconsistencies of the same kind. _Domini_ is genitive singular and -nominative plural (corresponding to, e.g., _verbi_ and _verba_); -_verba_ is nominative and accusative pl. (corresponding to _domini_ -and _dominos_); _domino_ is dative and ablative; _dominæ_ gen. and -dative singular and nominative plural; _te_ is accusative and ablative; -_qui_ is singular and plural; _quæ_ singular fem. and plural fem. -and neuter, etc. Hence, while _patres filios amant_ or _patres filii -amant_ are perfectly clear, _patres consules amant_ allows of two -interpretations; and in how many ways cannot such a proposition as -_Horatius et Virgilius poetæ Varii amici erant_ be construed? _Menenii -patris munus_ may mean ‘the gift of father Menenius,’ or ‘the gift of -Menenius’s father’; _expers illius periculi_ either ‘free from that -danger’ or ‘free from (sharing) that person’s danger’; in an infinitive -construction with two accusatives, the only way to know which is the -subject and which the object is to consider the context, and that is -not always decisive, as in the oracular response given to the Æacide -Pyrrhus, as quoted by Cicero from Ennius: “Aio _te_, Æacida, _Romanos_ -vincere posse.” Such drawbacks seem to be inseparable from the -structure of the highly flexional Aryan languages; although they are -not logical consequences of a wealth of forms, yet historically they -cling to those languages which have the greatest number of grammatical -endings. And as we are here concerned not with the question how to -construct an artificial language (and even there I should not advise -the adoption of many case distinctions), but with the valuation of -natural languages as actually existing in their earlier and modern -stages, we cannot accept Johannson’s verdict: “The greater the wealth -of forms, the more intelligible the speech.” - - -XVIII.--§ 5. Word Order. - -If the German sentences quoted above are ambiguous, it is not only on -account of the want of clearness in the forms employed, but also on -account of the German rules of word order. One rule places the verb -last in subordinate sentences, and in two of the sentences there would -be no ambiguity in principal sentences: Die deutsche zunge klingt -und _singt gott_ im himmel lieder; or, Die deutsche zunge klingt, -und _gott im himmel singt_ lieder | _Sie erreicht_ freilich nicht -die spanische dichterin; or, Die spanische dichterin _erreicht sie_ -freilich nicht. In one of the remaining sentences the ambiguity is -caused by the rule that the verb must be placed immediately after an -introductory subjunct: if we omit _doch_ the sentence becomes clear: -Die _gesellschaft der Indierin würde_ lästig gewesen sein, or, _Die -gesellschaft würde der Indierin_ lästig gewesen sein. Here, again we -see the ill consequences of inconsistency of linguistic structure; some -of the rules for word position serve to show grammatical relations, -but in certain cases they have to give way to other rules, which -counteract this useful purpose. If you change the order of words in a -German sentence, you will often find that the meaning is not changed, -but the result will be an unidiomatic construction (bad grammar); -while in English a transposition will often result in perfectly good -grammar, only the meaning will be an entirely different one from the -original sentence. This does not amount to saying that the German rules -of position are useless and the English ones all useful, but only to -saying that in English word order is utilized to express difference of -meaning to a far greater extent than in German. - -One critic cites against me “one example, which figures in almost every -Rhetoric as a violation of clearness: _And thus the son the fervid sire -address’d_,” and he adds: “The use of a separate form for nominative -and accusative would clear up the ambiguity immediately.” The retort -is obvious: no doubt it would, but so would the use of a natural -word order. Word order is just as much a part of English grammar as -case-endings are in other languages; a violation of the rules of -word order may cause the same want of intelligibility as the use of -_dominum_ instead of _dominus_ would in Latin. And if the example is -found in almost every English Rhetoric, I am glad to say that equally -ambiguous sentences are very rare indeed in other English books. Even -in poetry, where there is such a thing as poetic licence, and where the -exigencies of rhythm and rime, as well as the fondness for archaic and -out-of-the-way expressions, will often induce deviations from the word -order of prose, real ambiguity will very seldom arise on that account. -It is true that it has been disputed which is the subject in Gray’s -line: - - And all the air a solemn stillness holds, - -but then it does not matter much, for the ultimate understanding of -the line must be exactly the same whether the air holds stillness or -stillness holds the air. In ordinary language we may find similar -collocations, but it is worth saying with some emphasis that there can -never be any doubt as to which is the subject and which the object. -The ordinary word order is, Subject-Verb-Object, and where there is a -deviation there must always be some special reason for it. This may -be the wish, especially for the sake of some contrast, to throw into -relief some member of the sentence. If this is the subject, the purpose -is achieved by stressing it, but the word order is not affected. -But if it is the object, this may be placed in the very beginning -of the sentence, but in that case English does not, like German and -Danish, require inversion of the verb, and the order consequently is, -Object-Subject-Verb, which is perfectly clear and unambiguous. See, for -instance, Dickens’s sentence: “_Talent, Mr. Micawber_ has; _capital, -Mr. Micawber_ has not,” and the following passage from a recent novel: -“Even Royalty had not quite their glow and glitter; _Royalty you_ might -see any day, driving, bowing, smiling. The Queen had a smile for every -one; but _the Duchess no one, not even Lizzie_, ever saw.” Thus, also, -in Shakespeare’s: - - _Things base and vilde_, holding no quantity, - _Loue_ can transpose to forme and dignity (_Mids._ I. 1. 233), - -and in Longfellow’s translation from Logau: - - A blind man is a poor man, and blind a poor man is; - For the former seeth no man, and _the latter no man_ sees. - -The reason for deviating from the order, Subject-Verb-Object, may again -be purely grammatical: a relative or an interrogative pronoun must be -placed first; but here, too, English grammar precludes ambiguity, as -witness the following sentences: This picture, which surpasses Mona -Lisa | This picture, which Mona Lisa surpasses | What picture surpasses -Mona Lisa? | What picture does not Mona Lisa surpass? In German (dieses -bild, welches die M. L. übertrifft, etc.) all four sentences would -be ambiguous, in Danish the two last would be indistinguishable; but -English shows that a small number of case forms is not incompatible -with perfect clearness and perspicuity. If the famous oracular answer -(_Henry VI, 2nd Part_, I. 4. 33), “The Duke yet liues, that Henry shall -depose,” is ambiguous, it is only because it is in verse, where you -expect inversions: in ordinary prose it could be understood only in one -way, as the word order would be reversed if _Henry_ was meant as the -object. - - -XVIII.--§ 6. Gender. - -Besides case distinctions the older Aryan languages have a rather -complicated system of gender distinctions, which in many instances -agrees with, but in many others is totally independent of, and even may -be completely at war with, the natural distinction between male beings, -female beings and things without sex. This grammatical gender is -sometimes looked upon as something valuable for a language to possess; -thus Schroeder (_Die formale Unterscheidung_ 87) says: “The formal -distinction of genders is decidedly an enormous advantage which the -Aryan, Semitic and Egyptian languages have before all other languages.” -Aasen (_Norsk Grammatik_ 123) finds that the preservation of the old -genders gives vividness and variety to a language; he therefore, in -constructing his artificial Norwegian ‘landsmaal,’ based it on those -dialects which made a formal distinction between the masculine and -feminine article. But other scholars have recognized the disadvantages -accruing from such distinctions; thus Tegnér (SM 50) regrets the fact -that in Swedish it is impossible to give such a form to the sentence -‘sin make må man ej svika’ as to make it clear that the admonition -is applicable to both husband and wife, because _make_, ‘mate,’ is -masculine, and _maka_ feminine. In Danish, where _mage_ is common to -both sexes, no such difficulty arises. Gabelentz (Spr 234) says: “Das -grammatische geschlecht bringt es weiter mit sich dass wir deutschen -nie eine frauensperson als einen menschen und nicht leicht einen mann -als eine person bezeichnen.” - -As a matter of fact, German gender is responsible for many -difficulties, not only when it is in conflict with natural sex, as when -one may hesitate whether to use the pronoun _es_ or _sie_ in reference -to a person just mentioned as _das mädchen_ or _das weib_, or _er_ or -_sie_ in reference to _die schildwache_, but also when sexless things -are concerned, and _er_ might be taken as either referring to the man -or to _der stuhl_ or to _der wald_ just mentioned, etc. In France, -grammarians have disputed without end as to the propriety or not of -referring to the (feminine) word _personnes_ by means of the pronoun -_ils_ (see Nyrop, _Kongruens_ 24, and Gr. iii. § 712): “Les personnes -que vous attendiez sont _tous logés_ ici.” As a negative pronoun -_personne_ is now frankly masculine: ‘personne n’est _malheureux_.’ -With _gens_ the old feminine gender is still kept up when an adjective -precedes, as in _les bonnes gens_, thus also _toutes les bonnes gens_, -but when the adjective has no separate feminine form, schoolmasters -prefer to say _tous les honnêtes gens_, and the masculine generally -prevails when the adjective is at some distance from _gens_, as in the -old school-example, _Instruits par l’expérience, toutes les vieilles -gens sont soupçonneux_. There is a good deal of artificiality in -the strict rules of grammarians on this point, and it is therefore -good that the Arrêté ministériel of 1901 tolerates greater liberty; -but conflicts are unavoidable, and will rise quite naturally, in -any language that has not arrived at the perfect stage of complete -genderlessness (which, of course, is not identical with inability to -express sex-differences). - -Most English pronouns make no distinction of sex: _I_, _you_, _we_, -_they_, _who_, _each_, _somebody_, etc. Yet, when we hear that Finnic -and Magyar, and indeed the vast majority of languages outside the -Aryan and Semitic world, have no separate forms for _he_ and _she_, -our first thought is one of astonishment; we fail to see how it is -possible to do without this distinction. But if we look more closely -we shall see that it is at times an inconvenience to have to specify -the sex of the person spoken about. Coleridge (_Anima Poetæ_ 190) -regretted the lack of a pronoun to refer to the word _person_, as it -necessitated some stiff and strange construction like ‘not letting the -person be aware wherein offence had been given,’ instead of ‘wherein -he or she has offended.’ It has been said that if a genderless pronoun -could be substituted for _he_ in such a proposition as this: ‘It -would be interesting if each of the leading poets would tell us what -he considers his best work,’ ladies would be spared the disparaging -implication that the leading poets were all men. Similarly there is -something incongruous in the following sentence found in a German -review of a book: “Was Maria und Fritz so zueinander zog, war, dass -_jeder_ von ihnen _am anderen_ sah, wie _er_ unglücklich war.” Anyone -who has written much in Ido will have often felt how convenient it is -to have the common-sex pronouns _lu_ (he or she), _singlu_, _altru_, -etc. It is interesting to see the different ways out of the difficulty -resorted to in actual language. First the cumbrous use of _he or she_, -as in Fielding _TJ_ 1. 174, the reader’s heart (if he or she have -any) | Miss Muloch _H._ 2. 128, each one made his or her comment.[85] -Secondly, the use of _he_ alone: If anybody behaves in such and such -a manner, he will be punished (cf. the wholly unobjectionable, but -not always applicable, formula: Whoever behaves in such and such a -manner will be punished). This use of _he_ has been legalized by the -Act 13 and 14 Vict., cap. 21. 4: “That in all acts words importing the -masculine gender shall be deemed and taken to include females.” Third, -the sexless but plural form _they_ may be used. If you try to put the -phrase, ‘Does anybody prevent you?’ in another way, beginning with -‘Nobody prevents you,’ and then adding the interrogatory formula, you -will perceive that ‘does he’ is too definite, and ‘does he or she’ too -clumsy; and you will therefore naturally say (as Thackeray does, _P_ 2. -260), “Nobody prevents you, do they?” In the same manner Shakespeare -writes (_Lucr._ 125): “Everybody to rest themselves betake.” The -substitution of the plural for the singular is not wholly illogical; -for _everybody_ is much the same thing as ‘all men,’ and _nobody_ is -the negation of ‘all men’; but the phenomenon is extended to cases -where this explanation will not hold good, as in G. Eliot, _M._ 2. 304, -I shouldn’t like to punish any one, even if _they’d_ done me wrong. -(For many examples from good writers see my MEG. ii. 5, 56.) - -The English interrogative _who_ is not, like the _quis_ or _quæ_ of the -Romans, limited to one sex and one number, so that our question ‘Who -did it?’ to be rendered exactly in Latin, would require a combination -of the four: _Quis hoc fecit?_ _Quæ hoc fecit?_ _Qui hoc fecerunt?_ -_Quæ hoc fecerunt?_ or rather, the abstract nature of _who_ (and -of _did_) makes it possible to express such a question much more -indefinitely in English than in any highly flexional language; and -indefiniteness in many cases means greater precision, or a closer -correspondence between thought and expression. - - -XVIII.--§ 7. Nominal Concord. - -We have seen in the case of the verbs how widely diffused in all the -old Aryan languages is the phenomenon of Concord. It is the same with -the nouns. Here, as there, it consists in secondary words (here chiefly -adjectives) being made to agree with principal words, but while with -the verbs the agreement was in number and person, here it is in number, -case and gender. This is well known in Greek and Latin; as examples -from Gothic may here be given Luk. 1. 72, _gamunan triggwos weihaizos -seinaizos_, ‘to remember His holy covenant,’ and 1. 75, _allans dagans -unsarans_, ‘all our days.’ The English translation shows how English -has discarded this trait, for there is nothing in the forms of (_his_), -_holy_, _all_ and _our_, as in the Gothic forms, to indicate what -substantive they belong to. - -Wherever the same adjectival idea is to be joined to two substantives, -the concordless junction is an obvious advantage, as seen from a -comparison of the English ‘my wife and children’ with the French ‘ma -femme et mes enfants,’ or of ‘the _local_ press and committees’ with -‘_la_ presse _locale_ et _les_ comités _locaux_.’ Try to translate -exactly into French or Latin such a sentence as this: “What are -the present state and wants of mankind?” (Ruskin). Cf. also the -expression ‘a verdict of wilful murder against _some_ person or -persons _unknown_,’ where _some_ and _unknown_ belong to the singular -as well as to the plural forms; Fielding writes (_TJ_ 3. 65): “_Some -particular_ chapter, or perhaps chapters, _may be obnoxious_.” Where an -English editor of a text will write: “Some (indifferently singular and -plural) word or words wanting here,” a Dane will write: “Et (sg.) eller -flere (pl.) ord (indifferent) mangler her.” These last examples may be -taken as proof that it might even in some cases be advantageous to have -forms in the substantives that did not show number; still, it must be -recognized that the distinction between one and more than one rightly -belongs to substantival notions, but logically it has as little to do -with adjectival as with verbal notions (cf. above, Ch. XVII § 11). In -‘black spots’ it is the spots, but not the qualities of black, that -we count. And in ‘two black spots’ it is of course quite superfluous -to add a dual or plural ending (as in Latin _duo_, _duæ_) in order to -indicate once more what the word _two_ denotes sufficiently, namely, -that we have not to do with a singular. Compare, finally, E. _to the -father and mother_, Fr. _au père et à la mère_, G. _zu dem vater und -der mutter_ (_zum vater und zur mutter_). - -If it is admitted that it is an inconvenience whenever you want to -use an adjective to have to put it in the form corresponding in case, -number and gender to its substantive, it may be thought a redeeming -feature of the language which makes this demand that, on the other -hand, it allows you to place the adjective at some distance from the -substantive, and yet the hearer or reader will at once connect the -two together. But here, as elsewhere in ‘energetics,’ the question -is whether the advantage counter-balances the disadvantage; in other -words, whether the fact that you are free to place your adjective where -you will is worth the price you pay for it in being always saddled -with the heavy apparatus of adjectival flexions. Why should you want -to remove the adjective from the substantive, which naturally must -be in your thought when you are thinking of the adjective? There is -one natural employment of the adjective in which it has very often -to stand at some distance from the substantive, namely, when it is -predicative; but then the example of German shows the needlessness of -concord in that case, for while the adjunct adjective is inflected (ein -_guter_ mensch, eine _gute_ frau, ein _gutes_ buch, _gute_ bücher) -the predicative is invariable like the adverb (der mensch ist _gut_, -die frau ist _gut_, das buch ist _gut_, die bücher sind _gut_). It -is chiefly in poetry that a Latin adjective is placed far from its -substantive, as in Vergil: “Et bene apud memores veteris stat gratia -facti” (_Æn._ IV. 539), where the form shows that _veteris_ is to -be taken with _facti_ (but then, where does _bene_ belong? it might -be taken with _memores_, _stat_ or _facti_). In Horace’s well-known -aphorism: “Æquam memento rebus in arduis servare mentem,” the flexional -form of _æquam_ allows him to place it first, far from _mentem_, and -thus facilitates for him the task of building up a perfect metrical -line; but for the reader it would certainly be preferable to have -had _æquam mentem_ together at once, instead of having to hold his -attention in suspense for five words, till finally he comes upon -a word with which to connect the adjective. There is therefore no -economizing of the energy of reader or hearer. Extreme examples may be -found in Icelandic skaldic poetry, in which the poets, to fulfil the -requirements of a highly complicated metrical system, entailing initial -and medial rimes, very often place the words in what logically must be -considered the worst disorder, thereby making their poem as difficult -to understand as an intricate chess-problem is to solve--and certainly -coming short of the highest poetical form. - - -XVIII.--§ 8. The English Genitive. - -If we compare a group of Latin words, such as _opera virorum omnium -bonorum veterum_, with a corresponding group in a few other languages -of a less flexional type: OE. _ealra godra ealdra manna weorc_; -Danish _alle gode gamle mænds værker_; Modern English _all good old -men’s works_, we perceive by analyzing the ideas expressed by the -several words that the Romans said really: ‘work,’ plural, nominative -or accusative + ‘man,’ plural, masculine, genitive + ‘all,’ plural, -genitive + ‘good,’ plural, masculine, genitive + ‘old,’ plural, -masculine, genitive. Leaving _opera_ out of consideration, we find that -plural number is expressed four times, genitive case also four times, -and masculine gender twice;[86] in Old English the signs of number and -case are found four times each, while there is no indication of gender; -in Danish the plural number is marked four times and the case once. And -finally, in Modern English, we find each idea expressed once only; and -as nothing is lost in clearness, this method, as being the easiest and -shortest, must be considered the best. Mathematically the different -ways of rendering the same thing might be represented by the formulas: -anx + bnx + cnx = (an + bn + cn)x = (a + b + c)nx. - -This unusual faculty of ‘parenthesizing’ causes Danish, and to a -still greater degree English, to stand outside the definition of the -Aryan family of languages given by the earlier school of linguists, -according to which the Aryan substantive and adjective can never -be without a sign indicating case. Schleicher (NV 526) says: “The -radical difference between Magyar and Indo-Germanic (Aryan) words is -brought out distinctly by the fact that the postpositions belonging to -co-ordinated nouns can be dispensed with in all the nouns except the -last of the series, e.g. _a jó embernek_, ‘dem guten menschen’ (_a_ for -_az_, demonstrative pronoun, article; _jó_, good; _ember_, man, _-nek_, -_-nak_, postposition with pretty much the same meaning as the dative -case), for _az-nak_ (annak) _jó-nak ember-nek_, as if in Greek you -should say το ἀγαθο ἀνθρώπῳ. An attributive adjective preceding its -noun always has the form of the pure stem, the sign of plurality and -the postposition indicating case not being added to it. Magyars say, -for instance, _Hunyady Mátyás magyar király-nak_ (to the Hungarian king -Mathew Hunyady), _-nak_ belonging here to all the preceding words. -Nearly the same thing takes place where several words are joined -together by means of ‘and.’” - -Now, this is an exact parallel to the English group genitive in cases -like ‘all good old men’s works,’ ‘the King of England’s power,’ -‘Beaumont and Fletcher’s plays,’ ‘somebody else’s turn,’ etc. The way -in which this group genitive has developed in comparatively recent -times may be summed up as follows (see the detailed exposition in my -ChE ch. iii.): In the oldest English _-s_ is a case-ending, like all -others found in flexional languages; it forms together with the body of -the noun one indivisible whole, in which it is sometimes impossible to -tell where the kernel of the word ends and the ending begins (compare -_endes_ from _ende_ and _heriges_ from _here_); only some words have -this ending, and in others the genitive is indicated in other ways. -As to syntax, the meaning or function of the genitive is complicated -and rather vague, and there are no fixed rules for the position of the -genitive in the sentence. - -In course of time we witness a gradual development towards greater -regularity and precision. The partitive, objective, descriptive and -some other functions of the genitive become obsolete; the genitive is -invariably put immediately before the word it belongs to; irregular -forms disappear, the _s_ ending alone surviving as the fittest, so that -at last we have one definite ending with one definite function and one -definite position. - -In Old English, when several words belonging together were to be put in -the genitive, each of them had to take the genitive mark, though this -was often different in different words, and thus we had combinations -like _anes reades mannes_, ‘a red man’s’ | _þære godlican lufe_, ‘the -godlike love’s’ | _ealra godra ealdra manna weorc_, etc. Now the _s_ -used everywhere is much more independent, and may be separated from the -principal word by an adverb like _else_ or by a prepositional group -like _of England_, and one _s_ is sufficient at the end even of a long -group of words. Here, then, we see in the full light of comparatively -recent history a giving up of the old flexion with its inseparability -of the constituent elements of the word and with its strictness of -concord; an easier and more regular system is developed, in which the -ending leads a more independent existence and may be compared with the -‘agglutinated’ elements of such a language as Magyar or even with the -‘empty words’ of Chinese grammar. The direction of this development -is the direct opposite of that assumed by most linguists for the -development of languages in prehistoric times. - - -XVIII.--§ 9. Bantu Concord. - -One of the most characteristic traits of the history of English is -thus seen to be the gradual getting rid of concord as of something -superfluous. Where concord is found in our family of languages, it -certainly is an heirloom from a primitive age, and strikes us now as -an outcome of a tendency to be more explicit than to more advanced -people seems strictly necessary. It is on a par with the ‘concord of -negatives,’ as we might term the emphasizing of the negative idea by -seemingly redundant repetitions. In Old English it was the regular -idiom to say: _n_an man _n_yste _n_an þing, ‘no man not-knew nothing’; -so it was in Chaucer’s time: he _n_euere yet _n_o vileynye _n_e sayde -In all his lyf unto _n_o manner wight; and it survives in the vulgar -speech of our own days: there was _n_iver _n_obody else gen (gave) me -_n_othin’ (George Eliot); whereas standard Modern English is content -with one negation: no man knew anything, etc. That concord is really a -primitive trait (though not, of course, found equally distributed among -all ‘primitive peoples’) will be seen also by a rapid glance at the -structure of the South African group of languages called Bantu, for -here we find not only repetition of negatives, but also other phenomena -of concord in specially luxuriant growth. - -I take the following examples chiefly from W. H. I. Bleek’s excellent, -though unfortunately unfinished, _Comparative Grammar_, though I am -well aware that expressions like _si-m-tanda_ (we love him) “are never -used by natives with this meaning without being determined by some -other expression” (Torrend, p. 7). The Zulu word for ‘man’ is _umuntu_; -every word in the same or a following sentence having any reference to -that word must begin with something to remind you of the beginning of -_umuntu_. This will be, according to fixed rules, either _mu_ or _u_, -or _w_ or _m_. In the following sentence, the meaning of which is ‘our -handsome man (or woman) appears, we love him (or her),’ these reminders -(as I shall term them) are printed in italics: - - _umu_ntu _w_etu _omu_chle _u_yabonakala, si_m_tanda (1) - man ours handsome appears, we love. - -If, instead of the singular, we take the corresponding plural _abantu_, -‘men, people’ (whence the generic name of Bantu), the sentence looks -quite different: - - _aba_ntu _b_etu _aba_chle _ba_yabonakala, si_ba_tanda (2). - -In the same way, if we successively take as our starting-point -_ilizwe_, ‘country,’ the corresponding plural _amazwe_, ‘countries,’ -_isizwe_, ‘nation,’ _izizwe_, ‘nations,’ _intombi_, ‘girl,’ -_izintombi_, ‘girls,’ we get: - - _ili_zwe _l_etu _eli_chle _li_yabonakala, si_li_tanda (5) - _ama_zwe _e_tu _ama_chle _a_yabonakala, si_wa_tanda (6) - _isi_zwe _s_etu _esi_chle _si_yabonakala, si_si_tanda (7) - _izi_zwe _z_etu _ezi_chle _zi_yabonakala, si_zi_tanda (8) - _in_tombi _y_etu _en_chle _i_yabonakala, si_yi_tanda (9) - _izin_tombi _z_etu _ezin_chle _zi_yabonakala, si_zi_tanda (10) - (girls) our handsome appear, we love.[87] - -In other words, every substantive belongs to one of several classes, of -which some have a singular and others a plural meaning; each of these -classes has its own prefix, by means of which the concord of the parts -of a sentence is indicated. (An inhabitant of the country of _U_ganda -is called _mu_ganda, pl. _ba_ganda or _wa_ganda; the language spoken -there is _lu_ganda.) - -It will be noticed that adjectives such as ‘handsome’ or ‘ours’ take -different shapes according to the word to which they refer; in the Zulu -Lord’s Prayer ‘thy’ is found in the following forms: _l_ako (referring -to _i_gama, ‘name,’ for _ili_gama, 5), _b_ako, (_ubu_kumkani, -‘kingdom,’ 14), _y_ako (_in_tando, ‘will,’ 9). So also the genitive -case of the same noun has a great many different forms, for the -genitive relation is expressed by the reminder of the governing word -+ the ‘relative particle’ _a_ (which is combined with the following -sound); take, for instance, _inkosi_, ‘chief, king’: - - _umu_ntu _w_enkosi, ‘the king’s man’ (1; _we_ for _w_ + _a_ + _i_). - _aba_ntu _b_enkosi, ‘the king’s men’ (2). - _ili_zwe _l_enkosi, ‘the king’s country’ (5). - _ama_zwe _e_nkosi, ‘the king’s countries’ (6). - _isi_zwe _s_enkosi, ‘the king’s nation’ (7). - _uku_tanda _kw_enkosi, ‘the king’s love’ (15). - -Livingstone says that these apparently redundant repetitions “impart -energy and perspicuity to each member of a proposition, and prevent -the possibility of a mistake as to the antecedent.” These prefixes are -necessary to the Bantu languages; still, Bleek is right as against -Livingstone in speaking of the repetitions as cumbersome, just as the -endings of Latin _multorum virorum antiquorum_ are cumbersome, however -indispensable they may have been to the contemporaries of Cicero. - -These African phenomena have been mentioned here chiefly to show to -what lengths concord may go in the speech of some primitive peoples. -The prevalent opinion is that each of these prefixes (_umu_, _aba_, -_ili_, etc.) was originally an independent word, and that thus words -like _umuntu_, _ilizwe_, were at first compounds like E. _steamship_, -where it would evidently be possible to imagine a reference to this -word by means of a repeated _ship_ (our ship, which ship is a great -ship, the ship appears, we love the ship); but at any rate the Zulus -extend this principle to cases that would be parallel to an imagined -repetition of _friendship_ by means of the same _ship_, or to referring -to _steamer_ by means of the ending _er_ (Bleek 107). Bleek and -others have tried to find out by an analysis of the words making up -the different classes what may have been the original meaning of the -class-prefix, but very often the connecting tie is extremely loose, -and in many cases it seems that a word might with equal right have -belonged to another class than the one to which it actually belongs. -The connexion also frequently seems to be a derived rather than an -original one, and much in this class-division is just as arbitrary as -the reference of Aryan nouns to each of the three genders. In several -of the classes the words have a definite numerical value, so that -they go together in pairs as corresponding singular and plural nouns; -but the existence of a certain number of exceptions shows that these -numerical values cannot originally have been associated with the class -prefixes, but must be due to an extension by analogy (Bleek 140 ff.). -The starting-point may have been substantives standing to each other -in the relation of ‘person’ to ‘people,’ ‘soldier’ to ‘army,’ ‘tree’ -to ‘forest,’ etc. The prefixes of such words as the latter of each of -these pairs will easily acquire a certain sense of plurality, no matter -what they may have meant originally, and then they will lend themselves -to forming a kind of plural in other nouns, being either put instead of -the prefix belonging properly to the noun (_ama_zwe, ‘countries,’ 6; -_ili_zwe, ‘country,’ 5), or placed before it (_ma-lu_to, ‘spoons,’ 6, -_lu_to, ‘spoon,’ 11). - -In some of the languages “the forms of some of the prefixes have been -so strongly contracted as almost to defy identification.” (Bleek 234). -All the prefixes probably at first had fuller forms than appear now. -Bleek noticed that the _ma-_ prefix never, except in some degraded -languages, had a corresponding _ma-_ as particle, but, on the contrary, -is followed in the sentence by _ga-_, _ya-_, or _a-_, and _mu-_ (3) -generally has a corresponding particle _gu-_. Now, Sir Harry Johnston -(_The Uganda Protectorate_, 1902, 2. 891) has found that on Mount Eldon -and in Kavirondo there are some very archaic forms of Bantu languages, -in which _gumu-_ and _gama-_ are the commonly used forms of the _mu-_ -and _ma-_ prefixes, as well as _baba-_ and _bubu-_ for ordinary _ba-_, -_bu-_; he infers that the original forms of _mu-_, _ma-_ were _ngumu-_, -_ngama-_. I am not so sure that he is right when he says that these -prefixes were originally “words which had a separate meaning of their -own, either as directives or demonstrative pronouns, as indications of -sex, weakness, littleness or greatness, and so on”--for, as we shall -see in a subsequent chapter, such grammatical instruments may have been -at first inseparable parts of long words--parts which had no meaning -of their own--and have acquired some more or less vague grammatical -meaning through being extended gradually to other words with which -they had originally nothing to do. The actual irregularity in their -distribution certainly seems to point in that direction. - - -XVIII.--§ 10. Word Order Again. - -Mention has already been made here and there of word order and its -relation to the great question of simplification of grammatical -structure; but it will be well in this place to return to the subject -in a more comprehensive way. The theory of word order has long been -the Cinderella of linguistic science: how many even of the best and -fullest grammars are wholly, or almost wholly, silent about it! And -yet it presents a great many problems of high importance and of the -greatest interest, not only in those languages in which word order has -been extensively utilized for grammatical purposes, such as English and -Chinese, but in other languages as well. - -In historical times we see a gradual evolution of strict rules for -word order, while our general impression of the older stages of our -languages is that words were often placed more or less at random. This -is what we should naturally expect from primitive man, whose thoughts -and words are most likely to have come to him rushing helter-skelter, -in wild confusion. One cannot, of course, apply so strong an expression -to languages such as Sanskrit, Greek or Gothic; still, compared with -our modern languages, it cannot be denied that there is in them much -more of what from one point of view is disorder, and from another -freedom. - -This is especially the case with regard to the mutual position of the -subject of a sentence and its verb. In the earliest times, sometimes -one of them comes first, and sometimes the other. Then there is a -growing tendency to place the subject first, and as this position is -found not only in most European languages but also in Chinese and other -languages of far-away, the phenomenon must be founded in the very -nature of human thought, though its non-prevalence in most of the older -Aryan languages goes far to show that this particular order is only -natural to _developed_ human thought. - -Survivals of the earlier state of things are found here and there; -thus, in German ballad style: “Kam ein schlanker bursch gegangen.” -But it is well worth noticing that such an arrangement is generally -avoided, in German as well as in the other modern languages of Western -Europe, and in those cases where there is some reason for placing the -verb before the subject, the speaker still, as it were, satisfies his -grammatical instinct by putting a kind of sham subject before the verb, -as in E. _there_ comes a time when ..., Dan. _der_ kommer en tid da -..., G. _es_ kommt eine zeit wo ..., Fr. _il_ arrive un temps où.... - -In Keltic the habitual word order placed the verb first, but little -by little the tendency prevailed to introduce most sentences by a -periphrasis, as in ‘(it) is the man that comes,’ and as that came to -mean merely ‘the man comes,’ the word order Subject-Verb was thus -brought about circuitously. - -Before this particular word order, Subject-Verb, was firmly established -in modern Gothonic languages, an exception obtained wherever the -sentence began with some other word than the subject; this might be -some important member of the proposition that was placed first for the -sake of emphasis, or it might be some unimportant little adverb, but -the rule was that the verb should at any rate have the second place, -as being felt to be in some way the middle or central part of the -whole, and the subject had then to be content to be placed after the -verb. This was the rule in Middle English and in Old French, and it is -still strictly followed in German and Danish: Gestern _kam das schiff_ -| Pigen _gav jeg kagen, ikke drengen_. Traces of the practice are -still found in English in parenthetic sentences to indicate who is the -speaker (‘Oh, yes,’ said he), and after a somewhat long subjunct, if -there is no object (‘About this time died the gentle Queen Elizabeth’), -where this word order is little more than a stylistic trick to avoid -the abrupt effect of ending the sentence with an isolated verb like -_died_. Otherwise the order Subject-Verb is almost universal in English. - - -XVIII.--§ 11. Compromises. - -The inverted order, Verb-Subject, is used extensively in many languages -to express questions, wishes and invitations. But, as already stated, -this order was not originally peculiar to such sentences. A question -was expressed, no matter how the words were arranged, by pronouncing -the whole sentence, or the most important part of it, in a peculiar -rising tone. This manner of indicating questions is, of course, still -kept up in modern speech, and is often the only thing to show that -a question is meant (‘John?’ | ‘John is here?’). But although there -was thus a natural manner of expressing questions, and although the -inverted word order was used in other sorts of sentences as well, yet -in course of time there came to be a connexion between the two things, -so that putting the verb before the subject was felt as implying a -question. The rising tone then came to be less necessary, and is -much less marked in inverted sentences like ‘Is John here?’ than in -sentences with the usual word order: ‘John is here?’ - -Now, after this method of indicating questions had become comparatively -fixed, and after the habit of thinking of the subject first had -become all but universal, these two principles entered into conflict, -the result of which has been, in English, Danish and French, the -establishment in some cases of various kinds of compromise, in which -the interrogatory word order has formally carried the day, while -really the verb, that is to say the verb which means something, is -placed after its subject. In English, this is attained by means of the -auxiliary _do_: instead of Shakespeare’s “Came he not home to-night?” -(_Ro._ II. 4. 2) we now say, “Did he not (or, Didn’t he) come home -to-night?” and so in all cases where a similar arrangement is not -already brought about by the presence of some other auxiliary, ‘Will he -come?’, ‘Can he come?’, etc. Where we have an interrogatory pronoun as -a subject, no auxiliary is required, because the natural front position -of the pronoun maintains the order Subject-Verb (Who came? | What -happened?). But if the pronoun is not the subject, _do_ is required to -establish the balance between the two principles (Who(m) did you see? -| What does he say?). - -In Danish, the verb _mon_, used in the old language to indicate a -weak necessity or a vague futurity, fulfils to a certain extent the -same office as the English _do_; up to the eighteenth century _mon_ -was really an auxiliary verb, followed by the infinitive: ‘Mon han -komme?’; but now the construction has changed, the indicative is used -with _mon_: ‘Mon han kommer?’, and _mon_ is no longer a verb, but an -interrogatory adverb, which serves the purpose of placing the subject -before the verb, besides making the question more indefinite and vague: -‘Kommer han?’ means ‘Does he come?’ or ‘Will he come?’ but ‘Mon han -kommer?’ means ‘Does he come (Will he come), do you think?’ - -French, finally, has developed two distinct forms of compromise between -the conflicting principles, for in ‘Est-ce que Pierre bat Jean?’ -_est-ce_ represents the interrogatory and _Pierre bat_ the usual word -order, and in ‘Pierre bat-il Jean?’ the real subject is placed before -and the sham subject after the verb. Here also, as in Danish, the -ultimate result is the creation of ‘empty words,’ or interrogatory -adverbs: _est-ce-que_ in every respect except in spelling is one word -(note that it does not change with the tense of the main verb), and -thus is a sentence prefix to introduce questions; and in popular speech -we find another empty word, namely _ti_ (see, among other scholars, -G. Paris, _Mélanges ling._ 276). The origin of this _ti_ is very -curious. While the _t_ of Latin _amat_, etc., coming after a vowel, -disappeared at a very early period of the French language, and so -produced _il aime_, etc., the same _t_ was kept in Old French wherever -a consonant protected it,[88] and so gave the forms _est_, _sont_, -_fait_ (from _fact_, for _facit_), _font_, _chantent_, etc. From -_est-il_, _fait-il_, etc., the _t_ was then by analogy reintroduced in -_aime-t-il_, instead of the earlier _aime il_. Now, towards the end -of the Middle Ages, French final consonants were as a rule dropped in -speech, except when followed immediately by a word beginning with a -vowel. Consequently, while _t_ is mute in sentences like ‘Ton frère -_dit_ | Tes frères _disent_,’ it is sounded in the corresponding -questions, ‘Ton frère _dit-il_? Tes frères _disent-ils_?’ As the final -consonants of _il_ and _ils_ are also generally dropped, even by -educated speakers, the difference between interrogatory and declarative -sentences in the spoken language depends solely on the addition of _ti_ -to the verb: written phonetically, the pairs will be: - - [tɔ̃ frɛ·r di--tɔ̃ frɛ·r di ti] - [te frɛ·r di·z--te frɛ·r di·z ti]. - -Now, popular instinct seizes upon this _ti_ as a convenient sign of -interrogative sentences, and, forgetting its origin, uses it even with -a feminine subject, turning ‘Ta sœur di(t)’ into the question ‘Ta sœur -di ti?’, and in the first person: ‘Je di ti?’ ‘Nous dison ti?’ ‘Je vous -fais-ti tort?’ (Maupassant). In novels this is often written as if it -were the adverb _y_: C’est-y pas vrai? | Je suis t’y bête! | C’est-y -vous le monsieur de l’Académie qui va avoir cent ans? (Daudet). I have -dwelt on this point because, besides showing the interest of many -problems of word order, it also throws some light on the sometimes -unexpected ways by which languages must often travel to arrive at new -expressions for grammatical categories. - -It was mentioned above that the inverted order, Verb-Subject, is used -extensively, not only in questions, but also to express wishes and -invitations. Here, too, we find in English compromises with the usual -order, Subject-Verb. For, apart from such formulas as ‘Long live the -King!’ a wish is generally expressed by means of _may_, which is -placed first, while the real verb comes after the subject: ‘May she be -happy!’, and instead of the old ‘Go we!’ we have now ‘Let us go!’ with -_us_, the virtual subject, placed before the real verb. When a pronoun -is wanted with an imperative, it used to be placed after the verb, as -in Shakespeare: ‘_Stand thou_ forth’ and ‘_Fear_ not _thou_,’ or in the -Bible: ‘_Turn ye_ unto him,’ but now the usual order has prevailed: -‘_You try!_’ ‘_You take_ that seat, and _somebody fetch_ a few more -chairs!’ But if the auxiliary _do_ is used, we have the compromise -order: ‘_Don’t you stir!_’ - - -XVIII.--§ 12. Order Beneficial? - -I have here selected one point, the place of the subject, to illustrate -the growing regularity in word order; but the same tendency is -manifested in other fields as well: the place of the object (or of two -objects, if we have an indirect besides a direct object), the place -of the adjunct adjective, the place of a subordinate adverb, which -by coming regularly before a certain case may become a preposition -‘governing’ that case, etc. It cannot be denied that the tendency -towards a more regular word order is universal, and in accordance with -the general trend of this inquiry we must next ask the question: Is -this tendency a beneficial one? Does the more regular word order found -in recent stages of our languages constitute a progress in linguistic -structure? Or should it be deplored because it hinders freedom of -movement? - -In answering this question we must first of all beware of letting our -judgment be run away with by the word ‘freedom.’ Because freedom is -desirable elsewhere, it does not follow that it should be the best -thing in this domain; just as above we did not allow ourselves to be -imposed on by the phrase ‘wealth of forms,’ so here we must be on -our guard against the word ‘free’: what if we turned the question in -another way: Which is preferable, order or disorder? It may be true -that, viewed exclusively from the standpoint of the speaker, freedom -would seem to be a great advantage, as it is a restraint to him to be -obliged to follow strict rules; but an orderly arrangement is decidedly -in the interest of the hearer, as it very considerably facilitates his -understanding of what is said; it is therefore, though indirectly, in -the interest of the speaker too, because he naturally speaks for the -purpose of being understood. Besides, he is soon in his turn to become -the hearer: as no one is exclusively hearer or speaker, there can be no -real conflict of interest between the two. - -If it be urged in favour of a free word order that we owe a certain -regard to the interests of poets, it must be taken into consideration, -first, that we cannot all of us be poets, and that a regard to all -those of us who resemble Molière’s M. Jourdain in speaking prose -without being aware of it is perhaps, after all, more important than a -regard for those very few who are in the enviable position of writing -readable verse; secondly, that a statistical investigation would, no -doubt, give as its result that those poets who make the most extensive -use of inversions are not among the greatest of their craft; and, -finally, that so many methods are found of neutralizing the restraint -of word order, in the shape of particles, passive voice, different -constructions of sentences, etc., that no artist in language need -despair. - -So far, we have scarcely done more than clear the ground before -answering our question. And now we must recognize that there are some -rules of word order which cannot be called beneficial in any way; they -are like certain rules of etiquette, in so far as one can see no reason -for their existence, and yet one is obliged to bow to them. Historians -may, in some cases, be able to account for their origin and show that -they had a _raison d’être_ at some remote period; but the circumstances -that called them into existence then have passed away, and they are -now felt to be restraints with no concurrent advantage to reconcile -us to their observance. Among rules of this class we may reckon those -for placing the French pronouns now before, and now after, the verb, -now with the dative and now with the accusative first, ‘elle _me le_ -donne | elle _le lui_ donne | donnez-_le moi_ | ne _me le_ donnez pas.’ -And, again, the rules for placing the verb, object, etc., in German -subordinate clauses otherwise than in main sentences. That the latter -rules are defective and are inferior to the English rules, which are -the same for the two kinds of sentences, was pointed out before, when -we examined Johannson’s German sentences (p. 341), but here we may -state that the real, innermost reason for condemning them is their -inconsistency: the same rule does not apply in all cases. It seems -possible to establish the important principle that the more consistent -a rule for word order is, the more useful it is in the economy of -speech, not only as facilitating the understanding of what is said, but -also as rendering possible certain thoroughgoing changes in linguistic -structure. - - -XVIII.--§ 13. Word Order and Simplification. - -This, then, is the conclusion I arrive at, that as simplification of -grammatical structure, abolition of case distinctions, and so forth, -always go hand in hand with the development of a fixed word order, -this cannot be accidental, but there must exist a relation of cause -and effect between the two phenomena. Which, then, is the _prius_ -or cause? To my mind undoubtedly the fixed word order, so that the -grammatical simplification is the _posterius_ or effect. It is, -however, by no means uncommon to find a half-latent conception in -people’s minds that the flexional endings were first lost ‘by phonetic -decay,’ or ‘through the blind operation of sound laws,’ and that then -a fixed word order had to step in to make up for the loss of the -previous forms of expression. But if this were true we should have to -imagine an intervening period in which the mutual relations of words -were indicated in neither way; a period, in fact, in which speech was -unintelligible and consequently practically useless. The theory is -therefore untenable. It follows that a fixed word order must have come -in first: it would come quite gradually as a natural consequence of -greater mental development and general maturity, when the speaker’s -ideas no longer came into his mind helter-skelter, but in orderly -sequence. If before the establishment of some sort of fixed word order -any tendency to slur certain final consonants or vowels of grammatical -importance had manifested itself, it could not have become universal, -as it would have been constantly checked by the necessity that speech -should be intelligible, and that therefore those marks which showed the -relation of different words should not be obliterated. But when once -each word was placed at the exact spot where it properly belonged, then -there was no longer anything to forbid the endings being weakened by -assimilation, etc., or being finally dropped altogether. - -To bring out my view I have been obliged in the preceding paragraph -to use expressions that should not be taken too literally; I have -spoken as if the changes referred to were made ‘in the lump,’ that -is, as if the word order was first settled in every respect, and -after that the endings began to be dropped. The real facts are, of -course, much more complicated, changes of one kind being interwoven -with changes of the other in such a way as to render it difficult, -if not impossible, in any particular case to discover which was the -_prius_ and which the _posterius_. We are not able to lay our finger -on one spot and say: Here final _m_ or _n_ was dropped, because it was -now rendered superfluous as a case-sign on account of the accusative -being invariably placed after the verb, or for some other such -reason. Nevertheless, the essential truth of my hypothesis seems to -me unimpeachable. Look at Latin final _s_. Cicero (_Orat._ 48. 161) -expressly tells us, what is corroborated by a good many inscriptions, -that there existed a strong tendency to drop final _s_; but the -tendency did not prevail. The reason seems obvious; take a page of -Latin prose and try the effect of striking out all final _s_’s, and -you will find that it will be extremely difficult to determine the -meaning of many passages; a consonant playing so important a part in -the endings of nouns and verbs could not be left out without loss in -a language possessing so much freedom in regard to word position as -Latin. Consequently it was kept, but in course of time word position -became more and more subject to laws; and when, centuries later, after -the splitting up of Latin into the Romanic languages, the tendency to -slur over final _s_ knocked once more at the door, it met no longer -with the same resistance: final _s_ disappeared, first in Italian and -Rumanian, then in French, where it was kept till about the end of the -Middle Ages, and it is now beginning to sound a retreat in Spanish; see -on Andalusian Fr. Wulff, _Un Chapitre de Phonétique Andalouse_, 1889. - -The main line of development in historical times has, I take it, been -the following: first, a period in which words were placed somewhere or -other according to the fancy of the moment, but many of them provided -with signs that would show their mutual relations; next, a period -with retention of these signs, combined with a growing regularity in -word order, and at the same time in many connexions a more copious -employment of prepositions; then an increasing indistinctness and -finally complete dropping of the endings, word order (and prepositions) -being now sufficient to indicate the relations at first shown by -endings and similar means. - -Viewed in this light, the transition from freedom in word position to -greater strictness must be considered a beneficial change, since it has -enabled the speakers to do away with more circumstantial and clumsy -linguistic means. Schiller says: - - Jeden anderen meister erkennt man an dem, was er ausspricht; - Was er weise verschweigt, zeigt mir den meister des stils. - -(Every other master is known by what he says, but the master of style -by what he is wisely silent on.) What style is to the individual, the -general laws of language are to the nation, and we must award the -palm to that language which makes it possible “to be wisely silent” -about things which in other languages have to be expressed in a -troublesome way, and which have often to be expressed over and over -again (vir_orum_ omn_ium_ bon_orum_ veter_um_, eal_ra_ god_ra_ eald_ra_ -mann_a_). Could any linguistic expedient be more worthy of the genus -_homo sapiens_ than using for different purposes, with different -significations, two sentences like ‘John beats Henry’ and ‘Henry beats -John,’ or the four Danish ones, ‘Jens slaar Henrik--Henrik slaar -Jens--slaar Jens Henrik?--slaar Henrik Jens?’ (John beats Henry--H. -beats J.--does J. beat H.?--does H. beat J.?), or the Chinese use of -_či_ in different places (Ch. XIX § 3)? Cannot this be compared with -the ingenious Arabic system of numeration, in which 234 means something -entirely different from 324, or 423, or 432, and the ideas of “tens” -and “hundreds” are elegantly suggested by the order of the characters, -not, as in the Roman system, ponderously expressed? - -Now, it should not be forgotten that this system, “where more is meant -than meets the ear,” is not only more convenient, but also clearer -than flexions, as actually found in existing languages, for word -order in those languages which utilize it grammatically is used much -more consistently than any endings have ever been in the old Aryan -languages. It is not true, as Johannson would have us believe, that -the dispensing with old flexional endings was too dearly bought, as it -brought about increasing possibilities of misunderstandings; for in -the evolution of languages the discarding of old flexions goes hand in -hand with the development of simpler and more regular expedients that -are rather less liable than the old ones to produce misunderstandings. -Johannson writes: “In contrast to Jespersen I do not consider that -the masterly expression is the one which is ‘wisely silent,’ and -consequently leaves the meaning to be partly guessed at, but the one -which is able to impart the meaning of the speaker or writer clearly -and perfectly”--but here he seems rather wide of the mark. For, just as -in reading the arithmetical symbol 234 we are perfectly sure that two -hundred and thirty-four is meant, and not three hundred and forty-two, -so in reading and hearing ‘The boy hates the girl’ we cannot have the -least doubt who hates whom. After all, there is less guesswork in the -grammatical understanding of English than of Latin; cf. the examples -given above, Ch. XVIII § 4, p. 343. - -The tendency towards a fixed word order is therefore a progressive one, -directly as well as indirectly. The substitution of word order for -flexions means a victory of spiritual over material agencies. - - -XVIII.--§ 14. Summary. - -We may here sum up the results of our comparison of the main features -of the grammatical structures of ancient and modern languages belonging -to our family of speech. We have found certain traits common to the -old stages and certain others characteristic of recent ones, and have -thus been enabled to establish some definite tendencies of development -and to find out the general direction of change; and we have shown -reasons for the conviction that this development has on the whole and -in the main been a beneficial one, thus justifying us in speaking about -‘progress in language.’ The points in which the superiority of the -modern languages manifested itself were the following: - -(1) The forms are generally shorter, thus involving less muscular -exertion and requiring less time for their enunciation. - -(2) There are not so many of them to burden the memory. - -(3) Their formation is much more regular. - -(4) Their syntactic use also presents fewer irregularities. - -(5) Their more analytic and abstract character facilitates expression -by rendering possible a great many combinations and constructions which -were formerly impossible or unidiomatic. - -(6) The clumsy repetitions known under the name of concord have become -superfluous. - -(7) A clear and unambiguous understanding is secured through a regular -word order. - -These several advantages have not been won all at once, and languages -differ very much in the velocity with which they have been moving -in the direction indicated; thus High German is in many respects -behindhand as compared with Low German; European Dutch as compared -with African Dutch; Swedish as compared with Danish; and all of them -as compared with English; further, among the Romanic languages we see -considerable variations in this respect. What is maintained is chiefly -that there is a general tendency for languages to develop along the -lines here indicated, and that this development may truly, from the -anthropocentric point of view, which is the only justifiable one, be -termed a progressive evolution. - -But is this tendency really general, or even universal, in the world -of languages? It will easily be seen that my examples have in the -main been taken from comparatively few languages, those with which -I myself and presumably most of my readers are most familiar, all -of them belonging to the Gothonic and Romanic branches of the Aryan -family. Would the same theory hold good with regard to other languages? -Without pretending to an intimate knowledge of the history of many -languages, I yet dare assert that my conclusions are confirmed by all -those languages whose history is accessible to us. Colloquial Irish -and Gaelic have in many ways a simpler grammatical structure than the -Oldest Irish. Russian has got rid of some of the complications of Old -Slavonic, and the same is true, even in a much higher degree, of some -of the other Slavonic languages; thus, Bulgarian has greatly simplified -its nominal and Serbian its verbal flexions. The grammar of spoken -Modern Greek is much less complicated than that of the language of -Homer or of Demosthenes. The structure of Modern Persian is nearly as -simple as English, though that of Old Persian was highly complicated. -In India we witness a constant simplification of grammar from Sanskrit -through Prakrit and Pali to the modern languages, Hindi, Hindostani -(Urdu), Bengali, etc. Outside the Aryan world we see the same movement: -Hebrew is simpler and more regular than Assyrian, and spoken Arabic -than the old classical language, Koptic than Old Egyptian. Of most -of the other languages we are not in possession of written records -from very early times; still, we may affirm that in Turkish there has -been an evolution, though rather a slow one, of a similar kind; and, -as we shall see in a later chapter, Chinese seems to have moved in -the same direction, though the nature of its writing makes the task -of penetrating into its history a matter of extreme difficulty. A -comparative study of the numerous Bantu languages spoken all over South -Africa justifies us in thinking that their evolution has been along -the same lines: in some of them the prefixes characterizing various -classes of nouns have been reduced in number and in extent (cf. above, -§ 9). Of one of them we have a grammar two hundred years old, by -Brusciotto à Vetralla (re-edited by H. Grattan Guinness, London, 1882). -A comparison of his description with the language now spoken in the -same region (Mpongwe) shows that the class signs have dwindled down -considerably and the number of the classes has been reduced from 16 to -10. In short, though we can only prove it with regard to a minority of -the multitudinous languages spoken on the globe, this minority embraces -_all_ the languages known to us for so long a period that we can talk -of their history, and we may, therefore, confidently maintain that what -may be briefly termed the tendency towards grammatical simplification -is a universal fact of linguistic history. - -That this simplification is progressive, i.e. beneficial, was -overlooked by the older generation of linguistic thinkers, because -they saw a kosmos, a beautiful and well-arranged world, in the old -languages, and missed in the modern ones several things that they had -been accustomed to regard with veneration. To some extent they were -right: every language, when studied in the right spirit, presents so -many beautiful points in its systematic structure that it may be called -a ‘kosmos.’ But it is not in every way a kosmos; like everything human, -it presents fine and less fine features, and a comparative valuation, -such as the one here attempted, should take both into consideration. -There is undoubtedly an exquisite beauty in the old Greek language, -and the ancient Hellenes, with their artistic temperament, knew how to -turn that beauty to the best account in their literary productions; -but there is no less beauty in many modern languages--though its -appraisement is a matter of taste, and as such evades scientific -inquiry. But the æsthetic point of view is not the decisive one: -language is of the utmost importance to the whole practical and -spiritual life of mankind, and therefore has to be estimated by such -tests as those applied above; if that is done, we cannot be blind -to the fact that modern languages as wholes are more practical than -ancient ones, and that the latter present so many more anomalies -and irregularities than our present-day languages that we may feel -inclined, if not to apply to them Shakespeare’s line, “Misshapen chaos -of well-seeming forms,” yet to think that the development has been from -something nearer chaos to something nearer kosmos. - -FOOTNOTES: - -[84] Thus also the corresponding Lat. _jecur_ by _ficatum_, Fr. _foie_. - -[85] This ungainly repetition is frequent in the Latin of Roman law, -e.g. _Digest._ IV. 5. 2, _Qui quæve_ ... capite _diminuti diminutæ_ -esse dicentur, in _eos easve_ ... iudicium dabo. | XLIII. 30, _Qui -quæve_ in potestate Lucii Titii est, si _is eave_ apud te est, dolove -malo tuo factum est quominus apud te esset, ita _eum eamve_ exhibeas. -| XI. 3, Qui _servum servam alienum alienam_ recepisse persuasisseve -quid ei dicitur dolo malo, quo _eum eam_ deteriorem faceret, in eum, -quanti ea res erit, in duplum iudicium dabo. I owe these and some other -Latin examples to my late teacher, Dr. O. Siesbye. From French, Nyrop -(_Kongruens_, p. 12) gives some corresponding examples: _tous ceux -et toutes celles_ qui, ayant été orphelins, avaient eu une enfance -malheureuse (Philippe), and from Old French: Lors donna congié à _ceus -et à celes_ que il avoit rescous (Villehardouin). - -[86] If instead of _omnium veterum_ I had chosen, for instance, -_multorum antiquorum_, the meaning of masculine gender would have been -rendered four times: for languages, especially the older ones, are not -distinguished by consistency. - -[87] The change of the initial sound of the reminder belonging to the -adjective is explained through composition with a ‘relative particle’ -_a_; _au_ becoming _o_, and _ai_, _e_. The numbers within parentheses -refer to the numbers of Bleek’s classes. Similar sentences from Tonga -are found in Torrend’s _Compar. Gr._ p. 6 f. - -[88] This protecting consonant was dropped in pronunciation at a later -period. - - - - -CHAPTER XIX - -ORIGIN OF GRAMMATICAL ELEMENTS - - § 1. The Old Theory. § 2. Roots. § 3. Structure of Chinese. § 4. - History of Chinese. § 5. Recent Investigations. § 6. Roots Again. - § 7. The Agglutination Theory. § 8. Coalescence. § 9. Flexional - Endings. § 10. Validity of the Theory. § 11. Irregularity Original. § - 12. Coalescence Theory dropped. § 13. Secretion. § 14. Extension of - Suffixes. § 15. Tainting of Suffixes. § 16. The Classifying Instinct. - § 17. Character of Suffixes. § 18. Brugmann’s Theory of Gender. § 19. - Final Considerations. - - -XIX.--§ 1. The Old Theory. - -What has been given in the last two chapters to clear up the problem -“Decay or progress?” has been based, as will readily be noticed, -exclusively on easily controllable facts of linguistic history. So far, -then, it has been very smooth sailing. But now we must venture out into -the open sea of prehistoric speculations. Our voyage will be the safer -if we never lose sight of land and have a reliable compass tested in -known waters. - -In our historical survey of linguistic science we have already seen -that the prevalent theory concerning the prehistoric development of -our speech is this: an originally isolating language, consisting of -nothing but formless roots, passed through an agglutinating stage, in -which formal elements had been developed, although these and the roots -were mutually independent, to the third and highest stage found in -flexional languages, in which formal elements penetrated the roots and -made inseparable unities with them. We shall now examine the basis of -this theory. - -In the beginning was the root. This is “the result of strict and -careful induction from the facts recorded in the dialects of the -different members of the family” (Whitney L 260). “The firm foundation -of the theory of roots lies in its logical necessity as an inference -from the doctrine of the historical growth of grammatical apparatus” -(Whitney G 200). “An instrumentality cannot but have had rude and -simple beginnings, such as, in language, the so-called roots ... such -imperfect hints of expression as we call roots” (Whitney, _Views of -L._ 338). These are really three different statements: induction from -the facts, a logical inference from the doctrine about grammatical -apparatus (i.e. the usually accepted doctrine, but on what is that -built up except on the root theory?), and the _a priori_ argument that -an ‘instrumentality’ must have simple beginnings. Even granted that -these three arguments given at different times, each of them in turn -as the sole argument, must be taken as supplementing each other, the -three-legged stool on which the root theory is thus made to sit is a -very shaky one, for none of the three legs is very solid, as we shall -soon have occasion to see. - - -XIX.--§ 2. Roots. - -In the beginning was the root--but what was it like? Bopp took over -the conception of root from the Indian grammarians, and like them -was convinced that roots were all monosyllabic, and that view was -accepted by his followers. These latter at times attributed other -phonetic qualities to these roots, e.g. that they always had a short -vowel (Curtius C 22). I quote from a very recent treatise (Wood, -“Indo-European Root-formation,” _Journal of Germ. Philol._ 1. 291): “I -range myself with those who believe that IE. roots were monosyllabic -... these roots began, for the most part, with a vowel. The vowels -certainly were the first utterances,[89] and though we cannot make -the beginning of IE. speech coeval with that of human speech, we may -at least assume that language, at that time, was in a very primitive -state.” - -The number of these roots was not very great (Curtius, l.c.; Wood 294). -This seems a natural enough conclusion when we picture the earliest -speech as the most meagre thing possible. - -These few short monosyllabic roots were real words--this is a necessary -assumption if we are to imagine a root stage as a real language, and it -is often expressly stated; Curtius, for instance, insists that roots -are real and independent words (C 22, K 132); cf. also Whitney, who -says that the root _VAK_ “had also once an independent status, that -it was a word” (L 255). We shall see afterwards that there is another -possible conception of what a ‘root’ is; but let us here grant that -it is a real word. The question whether a language is possible which -contains nothing but such root words was always answered affirmatively -by a reference to Chinese--and it will therefore be well here to give -a short sketch of the chief structural features of that language. - - -XIX.--§ 3. Structure of Chinese. - -Each word consists of one syllable, neither more nor less. Each of -these monosyllables has one of four or five distinct musical tones -(not indicated here). The parts of speech are not distinguished: _ta_ -means, according to circumstances, great, much, magnitude, enlarge. -Grammatical relations, such as number, person, tense, case, etc., are -not expressed by endings and similar expedients; the word in itself -is invariable. If a substantive is to be taken as plural, this as a -rule must be gathered from the context; and it is only when there is -any danger of misunderstanding, or when the notion of plurality is to -be emphasized, that separate words are added, e.g. _ki_ ‘some,’ _šu_ -‘number.’ The most important part of Chinese grammar is that dealing -with word order: _ta kuok_ means ‘great state(s),’ but _kuok ta_ -‘the state is great,’ or, if placed before some other word which can -serve as a verb, ‘the greatness (size) of the state’; _tsï niu_ ‘boys -and girls,’ but _niu tsï_ ‘girl (female child),’ etc. Besides words -properly so called, or as Chinese grammarians call them ‘full words,’ -there are several ‘empty words’ serving for grammatical purposes, -often in a wonderfully clever and ingenious way. Thus _či_ has besides -other functions that of indicating a genitive relation more distinctly -than would be indicated by the mere position of the words; _min_ -(people) _lik_ (power) is of itself sufficient to signify ‘the power -of the people,’ but the same notion is expressed more explicitly by -_min či lik_. The same expedient is used to indicate different sorts -of connexion: if _či_ is placed after the subject of a sentence it -makes it a genitive, thereby changing the sentence into a kind of -subordinate clause: _wang pao min_ = ‘the king protects the people’; -but if you say _wang či pao min yeu_ (is like) _fu_ (father) _či pao -tsï_, the whole may be rendered, by means of the English verbal noun, -‘the king’s protecting the people is like the father’s protecting -his child.’ Further, it is possible to change a whole sentence into -a genitive; for instance, _wang pao min či tao_ (manner) _k’o_ (can) -_kien_ (see, be seen), ‘the manner in which the king protects (the -manner of the king’s protecting) his people is to be seen’; and in yet -other positions _či_ can be used to join a word-group consisting of a -subject and verb, or of verb and object, as an adjunct (attribute) to a -noun; we have participles to express the same modification of the idea: -_wang pao či min_ ‘the people protected by the king’; _pao min či wang_ -‘a king protecting the people.’ Observe here the ingenious method of -distinguishing the active and passive voices by strictly adhering to -the natural order and placing the subject before and the object after -the verb. If we put _i_ before, and _ku_ after, a single word, it -means ‘on account of, because of’ (cf. E. for ...’s sake); if we place -a whole sentence between these ‘brackets,’ as we might term them, they -are a sort of conjunction, and must be translated ‘because.’[90] - - -XIX.--§ 4. History of Chinese. - -These few examples will give some faint idea of the Chinese language, -and--if the whole older generation of scholars is to be trusted--at -the same time of the primeval structure of our own language in the -root-stage. But is it absolutely certain that Chinese has retained -its structure unchanged from the very first period? By no means. As -early as 1861, R. Lepsius, from a comparison of Chinese and Tibetan, -had derived the conviction that “the monosyllabic character of Chinese -is not original, but is a lapse (!) from an earlier polysyllabic -structure.” J. Edkins, while still believing that the structure of -Chinese represents “the speech first used in the world’s grey morning” -(_The Evolution of the Chinese Language_, 1888), was one of the -foremost to examine the evidence offered by the language itself for the -determination of its earlier pronunciation. This, of course, is a much -more complicated problem in Chinese than in our alphabetically written -languages; for a Chinese character, standing for a complete word, may -remain unchanged while the pronunciation is changed indefinitely. But -by means of dialectal pronunciations in our own day, of remarks in -old Chinese dictionaries, of transcriptions of Sanskrit words made by -Chinese Buddhists, of rimes in ancient poetry, of phonetic or partly -phonetic elements in the word-characters, etc., it has been possible -to demonstrate that Chinese pronunciation has changed considerably, -and that the direction of change has been, here as elsewhere, towards -shorter and easier word-forms. Above all, consonant groups have been -simplified. - -In 1894 I ventured to offer my mite to these investigations by -suggesting an explanation of one phenomenon of pronunciation in -present-day Chinese. I refer to the change sometimes wrought in the -meaning of a word by the adoption of a different tone. Thus _wang_ -with one tone is ‘king,’ with another ‘to become king’; _lao_ with one -is ‘work,’ with another ‘pay the work’; _tsung_ with one tone means -‘follow,’ with another ‘follower,’ and with a third ‘footsteps’; _tshi_ -with one tone is ‘wife,’ with another ‘marry’; _haò_ is ‘good,’ and -_haó_ is ‘love.’ Nay, meanings so different as ‘acquire’ and ‘give’ -(_sheu_) or ‘buy’ and ‘sell’ (_mai_) are only distinguished by the -tones. Edkins and V. Henry (_Le Muséon_, Louvain, 1882, i. 435) have -attempted to explain this from gestures; but this is palpably wrong. -In the Danish dialect spoken in Sundeved, in southernmost Jutland, -two tones are distinguished, one high and one low (see articles by -N. Andersen and myself in _Dania_, vol. iv.). Now, these tones often -serve to keep words or forms of words apart that but for the tone, -exactly as in Chinese, would be perfect homophones. Thus _na_ with the -low tone is ‘fool,’ but with the high tone it is either the plural -‘fools’ or else a verb ‘to cheat, hoax’; _ri_ ‘ride’ is imperative or -infinitive according to the tone in which it is uttered; _jem_ in the -low tone is ‘home’ and in the high ‘at home’; and so on in a great -many words. There is no need, however, in this language to resort to -gestures to explain these tonic differences: the low tone is found in -words originally monosyllabic (compare standard Danish _nar_, _rid_, -_hjem_), and the high tone in words originally dissyllabic (compare -Danish _narre_, _ride_, _hjemme_). The tones belonging formerly to -two syllables are now condensed on one syllable. Although, of course, -Chinese tones cannot in every respect be paralleled with Scandinavian -ones, we may provisionally conjecture that the above-mentioned pairs -of Chinese words were formerly distinguished by derivative syllables -or flexional endings (see below, p. 373) which have now disappeared -without leaving any traces behind them except in the tones. This -hypothesis is perhaps rendered more probable by what seems to be an -established fact--that one of the tones has arisen through the dropping -of final stopped consonants (_p_, _t_, _k_). - -However this may be, the death-blow was given to the dogma of the -primitiveness of Chinese speech by Ernst Kuhn’s lecture _Ueber -Herkunft und Sprache der Transgangetischen Völker_ (Munich, 1883). He -compares Chinese with the surrounding languages of Tibet, Burmah and -Siam, which are certainly related to Chinese and have essentially the -same structure; they are isolating, have no flexion, and word order -is their chief grammatical instrument. But the laws of word order -prove to be different in these several languages, and Kuhn draws the -incontrovertible conclusion that it is impossible that any one of these -laws of word position should have been the original one; for that would -imply that the other nations have changed it without the least reason -and at a risk of terrible confusion. The only likely explanation is -that these differences are the outcome of a former state of greater -freedom. But if the ancestral speech had a free word order, to be at -all intelligible it must have been possessed of other grammatical -appliances than are now found in the derived tongues; in other words, -it must have indicated the relations of words to each other by -something like our derivatives or flexions. - -To the result thus established by Kuhn, that Chinese cannot have had -a fixed word order from the beginning, we seem also to be led if we -ask the question, Is primitive man likely to have arranged his words -in this way? A Chinese sentence, according to Gabelentz (Spr 426), is -arranged with the same logical precision as the direction on an English -envelope, where the most specific word is placed first, and each -subsequent word is like a box comprising all that precedes--only that a -Chinaman would reverse the order, beginning with the most general word -and then in due order specializing. Now, is it probable that primitive -man, that unkempt, savage being, who did not yet deserve the proud -generic name of _homo sapiens_, but would be better termed, if not -_homo insipiens_, at best _homo incipiens_--is it probable that this -_urmensch_, who was little better than an _unmensch_, should have been -able at once to arrange his words, or, what amounts to the same thing, -his thoughts, in such a perfect order? I incline to believe rather -that logical, orderly thinking and speaking have only been attained by -mankind after a long and troublesome struggle, and that the grammatical -expedient of a fixed word order has come to Chinese as to European -languages through a gradual development in which other, less logical -and more material grammatical appliances have in course of time been -given up. - -We have thus arrived at a conception of Chinese which is _toto cælo_ -removed from the view formerly current. The Chinese language can -no longer be adduced in support of the hypothesis that our Aryan -languages, or all human languages, started at first as a grammarless -speech consisting of monosyllabic root-words. - - -XIX.--§ 5. Recent Investigations. - -I have reprinted the above sketch of Chinese, with a few very -insignificant verbal changes, as I wrote it about thirty years ago, -because I think that the main reasoning is just as valid now as then, -and because everything I have since then read about this interesting -language has only confirmed the opinion I ventured to express after -what was certainly a very insufficient study. Chinese pronunciation, -including its tones, may now be studied in two excellent books, -dealing with two different dialects--Daniel Jones and Kwing Tong Woo, -_A Cantonese Phonetic Reader_, London, 1912, and Bernhard Karlgren, -_A Mandarin Phonetic Reader in the Pekinese Dialect_, Upsala, Leipzig -and Paris, 1917 (Archives d’Études Orientales, vol. 13). Karlgren is -also the author of _Études sur la Phonologie Chinoise_ (ib. vol. 15, -1915-19), in which he deals with the history of Chinese sounds and the -reconstruction of the old pronunciation in a thoroughly scholarly -manner on the basis of an intimate knowledge of spoken and written -Chinese, and in _Ordet och pennan i mittens rike_ (Stockholm, 1918), -he has given a masterly popular sketch of the structure of the Chinese -language and its system of writing. - -Of the greatest importance for our purposes is the same scholar’s -recent brilliant discovery of a real case distinction in the oldest -Chinese. In classical Chinese there are four pronouns of the first -person (I, we) which have always been considered as absolutely -synonymous. But Karlgren shows that the two of them which occur as the -usual forms in Confucius’s conversations are so far from being used -indiscriminately that one is nearly always a nominative and the other -an objective case; the exceptions are not numerous and are easily -explained. The present Mandarin pronunciation of the first is [u], of -the second either [uo] or [ŋo]. But if we go back to the sixth century -of our era we are able with certainty to say that the pronunciation of -the former was [ŋuo], and of the latter [ŋa]. This, then, constitutes -a real declension. Now, in the second person Karlgren is also able to -point out a distinction of two pronouns, though not quite so clearly -marked as in the first person, the objective showing here a greater -tendency to encroach on the nominative (Karlgren here ingeniously -adduces the parallel from our languages that the first person has -retained the suppletive system _ego: me_, while the second uses the -same stem _tu: te_). The oldest Chinese thus has the following case -flexion: - - 1st Per. 2nd Per. - Nom. ŋuo nźiwo - Obj. ŋa nźia - -(See “Le Proto-chinois, langue flexionnelle,” _Journal Asiatique_, -1920, 205 ff.).[91] - - -XIX.--§ 6. Roots Again. - -To return to roots. The influence of Indian grammar on European -linguists with regard to the theory of roots extended also to the -meanings assigned to roots, which were all of them of verbal -character, and nearly always highly general or abstract, such as -‘breathe, move, be sharp or quick, blow, go,’ etc. The impossibility of -imagining anybody expressing himself by means of a language consisting -exclusively of such abstracts embarrassed people much less than one -would expect: Chinese, of course, has plenty of words for concrete -objects. - -The usual assumption was that there was one definite root period -in which all the roots were created, and after which this form of -activity ceased. But Whitney demurred to this (M 36), saying that E. -_preach_ and _cost_ may be considered new roots, though ultimately -coming from Lat. _præ-dicare_ and _con-stare_: these old compounds -are felt as units, “reducing to the semblance of roots elements that -are really derivative or compound.” As Whitney goes no further than -to establish the _semblance_ of new roots, he might be taken as an -adherent rather than as an opponent of the theory he objects to. But, -as a matter of fact, new words _are_ created in modern languages, and -if they form the basis of derived words, we may really speak of new -roots (_pun--punning_, _punster_; _fun--funny_; etc.). Why not say -that we have a French root _roul_ in _rouler_, _roulement_, _roulage_, -_roulier_, _rouleau_, _roulette_, _roulis_? This only becomes -unjustifiable if we think that the establishment of this root gives -us the ultimate explanation of these words; for then the linguistic -historian steps in with the objection that the words have been formed, -not from a root, but from a real word, which is not even in itself -a primary word, but a derivative, Lat. _rotula_, a diminutive of -_rota_ ‘wheel.’ (I take this example from Bréal M 407). To the popular -instinct _sorrow_ and _sorry_ are undoubtedly related to one another, -and we may say that they contain a root _sorr-_; but a thousand years -ago they had nothing to do with one another, and belonged to different -roots: OE. _sorg_ ‘care’ and _sārig_ ‘wounded, afflicted.’ If all -traces of Latin and Greek were lost, a linguist would have no more -scruples about connecting _scene_ with _see_ than most illiterate -Englishmen have now. Who will vouch that many Aryan roots may not have -originated at various times through similar processes as these new -roots _preach_, _cost_, _roul_, _sorr_, _see_? - -The proper definition of a root seems to be: what is common to a -certain number of words felt by the popular instinct of the speakers as -etymologically belonging together. In this sense we may of course speak -of roots at any stage of any language, and not only at a hypothetical -initial stage. In some cases these roots may be used as separate -words (E. _preach_, _fun_, etc., Fr. _roul_ = what is spelt _roule_, -_roules_, _roulent_); in other cases this is impossible (Lat. _am_ in -_amo_, _amor_, _amicus_; E. _sorr_); in many cases because the common -element cannot, for phonetic reasons, be easily pronounced, as when E. -_drink, drank, drunk_ or _sit, sat, seat, set_ are naturally felt to -belong together, though it is impossible to state the root except in -some formula like _dr.nk_, _s.t_, where the dot stands for some vowel. -Similar considerations may be adduced with regard to the consonants if -we want to establish what is felt to be common in _give_ and _gift_ -(_gi_ + labiodental spirant) or in _speak_ and _speech_, etc.; but this -need not detain us here. - -In my view, then, the root is something real and important, though -not always tangible. And as its form is not always easy to state or -pronounce, so must its meaning, as a rule, be somewhat vague and -indeterminate, for what is common to several ideas must of course be -more general and abstract than either of the more special ideas thus -connected; it is also natural that it will often be necessary to state -the signification of a root in terms of verbal ideas, for these are -more general and abstract than nominal ideas. But roots thus conceived -belong to any and all periods, and we must cease to speak of the -earliest period of human speech as ‘the root period.’ - - -XIX.--§ 7. The Agglutination Theory. - -According to the received theory (see above, § 1) some of the roots -became gradually attached to other roots and lost their independence, -so as to become finally formatives fused with the root. This theory, -generally called the agglutination theory, contains a good deal of -truth; but we can only accept it with three important provisos, namely, -first, that there has never been one definite period in which those -languages which are now flexional were wholly agglutinative, the -process of fusion being liable to occur at any time; second, that the -component parts which become formatives are not at first roots, but -real words; and third, that this process is not the only one by which -formatives may develop: it may be called the rectilinear process, but -by the side of that we have also more circuitous courses, which are no -less important in the life of languages for being less obvious. - -In the process of coalescence or integration there are many possible -stages, which may be denominated figuratively by such expressions -as that two words are placed together (that is--in non-figurative -language--pronounced after one another), tied together, knit together, -glued together (‘agglutinated’), soldered together, welded together, -fused together or amalgamated. What is really the most important part -of the process is the degree in which one of the components loses its -independence, phonetically and semantically. - -As ‘agglutination’ is thus only one intermediate stage in a continuous -process, it would be better to have another name for the whole -theory of the origin of formatives than ‘the agglutination theory,’ -and I propose therefore to use the term ‘coalescence theory.’ The -usual name also fixes the attention too exclusively on the so-called -agglutinative languages, and if we take the formatives of such a -language as Turkish, as in _sev-mek_ ‘to love,’ _sev-il-mek_ ‘to be -loved,’ _sev-dir-mek_ ‘to cause to love,’ _sev-dir-il-mek_ ‘to be made -to love,’ _sev-ish-mek_ ‘to love one another,’ _sev-ish-dir-il-mek_ -‘to be made to love one another’--who will vouch that these formatives -were all of them originally independent words? Those who are most -competent to have an opinion on the matter seem nowadays inclined to -doubt it and to reject much of what was current in the description -of these languages given by the earlier scholars; see, especially, -the interesting final chapter of V. Grønbech, _Forstudier til tyrkisk -lydhistorie_ (København, 1902). - - -XIX.--§ 8. Coalescence. - -The various degrees of coalescence, and the coexistence at the same -linguistic period of these various degrees, may be illustrated -by the old example, English _un-tru-th-ful-ly_, and by German -_un-be-stimm-bar-keit_. Let us look a little at each of these -formatives. The only one that can still be used as an independent word -is _ful_(l). From the collocation in ‘I have my hand full of peas’ -the transition is easy to ‘a handful of peas,’ where the accentual -subordination of _full_ to _hand_ paves the way for the combination -becoming one word instead of two: this is not accomplished till it -becomes possible to put the plural sign at the end (_handfuls_, thus -also _basketfuls_ and others), while in less familiar combinations -the _s_ is still placed in the middle (_bucketsful_, two _donkeysful_ -of children, see MEG ii. 2. 42). In these substantives _-ful_ keeps -its full vowel [u]. But in adjectival compounds, such as _peaceful_, -_awful_, there is a colloquial pronunciation with obscured or omitted -vowel [-fəl, -fl], in which the phonetic connexion with the full word -is thus weakened; the semantic connexion, too, is loosened when it -becomes possible to form such words as _dreadful_, _bashful_, in which -it is not possible to use the definition ‘full of ...’ Here, then, the -transition from a word to a derivative suffix is complete. - -English _-hood_, _-head_ in _childhood_, _maidenhead_ also is -originally an independent word, found in OE. and ME. in the form _had_, -meaning ‘state, condition,’ Gothic _haidus_. In German it has two -forms, _-heit_, as in _freiheit_, and _-keit_, whose _k_ was at first -the final sound of the adjective in _ewigkeit_, MHG. _ewecheit_, but -was later felt as part of the suffix and then transferred to cases in -which the stem had no _k_, as in _tapferkeit_, _ehrbarkeit_. - -The suffix _-ly_ is from _lik_, which was a substantive meaning -‘form, appearance, body’ (‘a dead body’ in Dan. _lig_, E. _lich_ in -_lichgate_); _manlik_ thus is ‘having the form or appearance of a -man’; the adjective _like_ originally was _ge-lic_ ‘having the same -appearance with’ (as in Lat. _con-form-is_). In compounds _-lik_ -was shortened into _-ly_: in some cases we still have competing -forms like _gentlemanlike_ and _gentlemanly_. The ending was, and is -still, used extensively in adjectives; if it is now also used to turn -adjectives into adverbs, as in _truthful-ly_, _luxurious-ly_, this is a -consequence of the two OE. forms, adj. _-lic_ and adv. _-lice_, having -phonetically fallen together. - -It may perhaps be doubtful whether the G. suffix _-bar_ (OHG. _-bari_, -OE. _bære_) was ever really an independent word, but its connexion with -the verb _beran_, E. _bear_, cannot be doubted: _fruchtbar_ is what -bears fruit (cf. OE. _æppelbære_ ‘bearing apples’), but the connexion -was later loosened, and such adjectives as _ehrbar_, _kostbar_, -_offenbar_ have little or nothing left of the original meaning of -the suffix. The two prefixes in our examples, _un-_ and _be-_, are -differentiated forms of the old negative _ne_ and the preposition -_by_, and the only affix in our two long words which is thus left -unexplained is _-th_, which makes _true_ into _truth_ and is found also -in _length_, _health_, etc. - - -XIX.--§ 9. Flexional Endings. - -There can be no doubt, therefore, that some at any rate of our suffixes -and prefixes go back to independent words which have been more or less -weakened to become derivative formatives. But does the same hold good -with those endings which we are accustomed to term flexional endings? -The answer certainly must be in the affirmative with regard to _some_ -endings. - -Thus the Scandinavian passive originates in a coalescence of the -active verb and the pronoun _sik_: Old Norse _(þeir) finna sik_ (‘they -find themselves’ or ‘each other’), gradually becomes one word _(þeir) -finnask_, later _finnast_, _finnaz_, Swedish _(de) finnas_, Dan. -_(de) findes_ ‘they are found.’ In Old Icelandic the pronoun is still -to some extent felt as such, though formally an indistinguishable part -of the verb; thus combinations like the following are very frequent: -_Bolli kvaz þessu ráða vilja_ = _kvað sik vilja_; “Bolli dixit se -velle: B. said that he would have his own way” (Laxd. 55). In Danish -a distinction can sometimes be made between a reflexive and a purely -passive employment: _de slås_ with a short vowel is ‘they fight -(one another),’ but with a long vowel ‘they are beaten.’ A similar -coalescence is taking place in Russian, where _sja_ ‘himself’ (myself, -etc.) dwindles down to a suffixed _s_: _kazalos_ ‘it showed itself, -turned out.’ - -A similar case is the Romanic future: It. _finiro_, Sp. _finire_, Fr. -_finirai_, from _finire habeo_ (_finir ho_, etc.), originally ‘I have -to finish.’ Before the coalescence was complete, it was possible to -insert a pronoun, Old Sp. _cantar-te-hé_ ‘I shall sing to you.’ - -A third case in point is the suffixed definite article, if we are -allowed to consider that as a kind of flexion: Old Norse _mannenn_ -(_manninn_) accusative ‘the man,’ _landet_ (_landit_) ‘the land’; -Dan. _manden_, _landet_, from _mann_, _land_ + the demonstrative -pronoun _enn_, neuter _et_. Rumanian _domnul_ ‘the lord,’ from Lat. -_dominu(m) illu(m)_, is another example. - - -XIX.--§ 10. Validity of the Theory. - -Now, does this kind of explanation admit of universal application--in -other words, were all our derivative affixes and flexional endings -originally independent words before they were ‘glued’ to or fused with -the main word? This has been the prevalent, one might almost say the -orthodox, view of all the leading linguists, who may be mustered in -formidable array in defence of the agglutination theory.[92] - -Against the universality of this origin for formatives I adduced in my -former work (1894, p. 66 f., cf. _Kasus_, 1891, p. 36) four reasons, -which I shall here restate in a different order and in a fuller form. - -(1) Nothing can be proved with regard to the ultimate genesis of -flexion in general from the adduced examples, for in all of them the -elements were already fully flexional before the coalescence (cf. ON. -_finnask_, _fannsk_; It. _finirò_, _finirai_, _finira_; ON. _maðrenn_, -_mannenn_, _mansens_, etc.). What they show, then, is really nothing -but the growth of new flexional formations on an old flexional soil, -and it might be imagined that the fusion would not have taken place, or -not so completely, if the minds of the speakers had not been already -prepared to accept formations of this character. I do not, however, -attach much importance to this argument, and turn to those that are -more cogent. - -(2) The number of actual forms proved beyond a doubt to have -originated through coalescence is comparatively small. It is true that -not a few derivative syllables were originally independent; still, -if we compare them with the number of those for which no such origin -has been proved or even proposed, we find that the proportion is very -small indeed. In the list of English suffixes enumerated in Sweet’s -_Grammar_, only eleven can be traced back to independent words, while -74 are not thus explicable. Anyone going through the countless suffixes -enumerated in the second volume of Brugmann’s _Vergleichende Grammatik_ -will, I think, be struck with the impossibility of any great number of -them being traced back to words in the same way as _hood_, etc., above: -their forms and, still more, their vague spheres of meaning, and on the -whole their manner of application, distinctly speak against such an -origin. - -As to real flexional endings traceable to words, their number is even -comparatively smaller than that of derivative suffixes; the three or -four instances named above are everywhere appealed to, but are there -so many more than these? And are they numerous enough to justify so -general an assertion? My impression is that the basis for the induction -is very far from sufficient. - -(3) This argument is strengthened when we are able to point out -instances in which, as a matter of fact, flexional endings have arisen -in a way that is totally opposed to the agglutinative, which then must -renounce all claims to be the _only_ possible way for a language to -arrive at flexional formatives. See below (§ 13) on Secretion. - -(4) Assuming the theory to be true, we should expect much greater -regularity, both in formal (morphological) and in semantic (syntactic) -respect than we actually find in the old Aryan languages; for if one -definite element was added to signify one definite modification of -the idea, we see no reason why it should not have been added to all -words in the same way. As a matter of fact, the Romanic future, the -Scandinavian passive voice and definite article present much greater -regularity than is found in the flexion of nouns and verbs in old Aryan. - - -XIX.--§ 11. Irregularity Original. - -It will be objected that the irregularity which we find in these old -languages is of later growth, and that, in fact, flexion, as Schuchardt -says, is “anomal gewordene agglutination.” Whitney said that “each -suffix has its distinct meaning and office, and is applied in a whole -class of analogous words” (L. 254), and in reading Schleicher’s -_Compendium_ one gains the impression that the old Aryan sounds and -forms were like a regiment of well-trained soldiers marching along -in the best military style, while all irregularities were the result -of later decay in each language separately. But the trend of the -whole scientific development of the last fifty years has been in the -direction of demonstrating more and more irregularity in the original -forms: where formerly only one ending was assumed for the same case, -etc., now several are assumed. (See, e.g., Walde in Streitberg’s -_Gesch._, 2. 194, Thumb, ib. 2. 69.) And as with the forms, so also -with the meanings and applications of the forms. Madvig as early as -1857 (p. 27. Kl 202) had seen that the signification of the grammatical -forms must originally have been extremely vague and fluctuating, but -most scholars went on imagining that each case, each tense, each mood -had originally stood for something quite settled and definite, until -gradually the progress of linguistics made away with that conception -point by point. In place of the belief that the original Aryan verb -had a definite system of tense forms, it is now generally assumed -that different ‘aspects’ (‘aktionsarten’), somewhat like those of -Slav verbs, were indicated, and that the notion of ‘time’ differences -was only afterwards developed out of the notion of aspect: but if -we compare the divisions and definitions of these aspects given by -various scholars, we see how essentially vague this notion is; instead -of being a model system of nice logical distinctions, the original -condition must rather have been one in which such notions as duration, -completion, result, beginning, repetition were indistinctly found -as germs, from which such ideas as perfect and imperfect, past and -present, were finally evolved with greater and greater clearness. - -Similar remarks apply to moods. All attempts at finding out, -deductively or inductively, the fundamental notion (grundbegriff) -attached to such a mood as the subjunctive have failed: it is -impossible to establish one original, sharply circumscribed sphere of -usage, from which all the various, partly conflicting, usages in the -actually existing languages can be derived. The usual theory is that -there existed one true subjunctive, characterized by long thematic -vowels _-ē-_, _-ā-_, _-ō-_, and distinct from that an optative, -characterized by a formative _-iē-_: _-ī-_,[93] and that these two were -fused in Latin. But, as Oertel and Morris have shown in their valuable -article “An Examination of the Theories regarding the Nature and Origin -of Indo-European Inflection” (_Harvard Studies in Classical Philol._ -XVI, 1905) it is probably safer to assume for the Indo-European period -substantial identity of meaning in the modal formatives _iē_: _ī_ and -the long thematic vowels _-ē-_, _-ā-_, _-ō-_, which were then continued -undifferentiated in Latin, while on the one hand the Germanic branch -has practically discarded the forms with long thematic vowel and -confined itself to the _i_ suffix, and on the other hand two branches, -Greek and Indo-Iranic, have availed themselves of the formal difference -and separated a ‘subjunctive’ and an ‘optative’ mood. - - -XIX.--§ 12. Coalescence Theory dropped. - -In the historical part I have already mentioned some instances of -coalescence explanations of Aryan forms which have been abandoned by -most scholars, such as the theory that the _r_ of the Latin passive is -a disguised _se_, which would agree very well with the Scandinavian -passive, but falls to the ground when one remembers that corresponding -forms are found in Keltic, where the transition from _s_ to _r_ is -otherwise unknown: these forms are now believed to be related to some -_r_ forms found in Sanskrit, but there not possessed of any passive -signification, this latter being thus a comparatively late acquisition -of Keltic and Italic: these two branches turning an existing, -non-meaning consonant to excellent use in their flexional system and -generalizing it in the new application.[94] - -The explanation of the ‘weak’ Gothonic preterit from a coalescence of -_did_ (_loved_ = _love did_) was long one of the strongholds of the -agglutination theory, Bopp’s original collocation of these forms with -other forms which could not be thus explained (see above 51) having -passed into oblivion. Now we have Collitz’s comprehensive book _Das -schwache Präteritum_, 1912, in which the formative consonant is shown -to have been Aryan _t_, and the close correspondence not only with the -passive participle, but also with the verbal nouns in _-ti_ is duly -emphasized. - -The impossibility of explaining the Latin perfect in _-vi_ from -composition with _fui_ has been demonstrated by Merguet (see Walde -in Streitberg’s _Gesch._, 2. 220). Instead of this rectilinear -explanation, scholars now incline to assume an intricate play of -various analogical influences starting from a pre-ethnic perfect in _w_ -in isolated instances. - -Many have explained the case ending _-s_ as a coalesced demonstrative -pronoun _sa_ or, as it is now given, _so_; the difficulty that the same -_s_ denotes now the nominative and now the genitive was got over by -Curtius (C 12) by the assumption that _sa_ was added at two distinct -periods, and that each period made a different use of the addition, -though Curtius does not tell us how one or the other function could be -evolved from such a pronoun. The latest attempt at explanation, which -reaches me as I am writing this chapter, is by Hermann Möller (KZ 49. -219): according to him the common Aryan and Semitic nominative ended in -_o_ and the genitive in _e_, but to this was added in the masculine, -and more rarely in the feminine, the pronoun _s_ as a definite -article, so that the primitive form corresponding to Lat. _lupus_ -meant ‘the wolf’ and _lupu_ ‘(a) wolf’; later the _s_-less form was -given up, and _lupus_ came to be used for both ‘the wolf’ and ‘wolf’ -(similarly presumably in the genitive, if we translate the presumed -original forms into Latin _lupis_ ‘the wolf’s’ and _lupi_ ‘(a) wolf’s,’ -later _lupi_ in both functions). In Semitic, inversely, an element -_m_, corresponding to the Aryan accusative ending, was added as an -_in_definite article, the _m_-less form thus becoming definite, but in -the oldest Babylonian-Assyrian the distinction has been given up, and -the form in _m_ is (like the Latin form in _s_) used both definitely -and indefinitely. Ingenious as these constructions are, the whole -theory seems to me highly artificial, and it is difficult to imagine -that both Aryans and Semites, after having evolved such a valuable -distinction as that between ‘the wolf’ and ‘a wolf,’ expressed by -simple means, should have wilfully given it up--to evolve it again in a -later period.[95] Fortunately one is allowed to confess one’s ignorance -of the origin of the case endings _s_ and _m_, but if I were on pain -of death to choose between Möller’s hypothesis and the suggestion -thrown out by Humboldt (Versch 129), that the light (high-pitched) _s_ -symbolized the living (personal) and active (the subject), and the dark -(low-pitched) _m_ the lifeless (neutral) and passive (the object), I -should certainly prefer the latter explanation. - -Hirt (GDS 37) also thinks that the _s_ found in Aryan cases is an -originally independent word, only he thinks that this _se_, _so_ was -not originally a demonstrative pronoun, but the particle, which with -the extension _i_ is found in Gothic _sai_ ‘ecce,’ and as it can thus -be compared with the particle _c_ in Lat. _hic_, it is clear that it -might be added in all cases--and as a matter of fact Hirt finds it in -six different cases in the singular and in all cases in the plural -except the genitive. Hirt makes no attempt at explaining how these -various case-forms have come to acquire the signification (function) -with which we find them in the oldest documents; “the _s_ element had -nothing to do with the denotation of any case, number or gender, and -only after it had been added to some cases and not to others could -it come to be distinctive of cases” (p. 39). In other words, his -explanation explains just nothing at all. The same is true with regard -to the ‘particles’ _om_ or _em_, _e_, _o_, _i_, which he thinks were -added in other cases, and when he ends (p. 42) by saying that “this -must be sufficient to give a glimpse of the way in which Aryan flexion -originated,” the only thing we have really seen is the haphazard way -in which this flexion is formed, and the impossibility at present of -arriving at a fully satisfactory explanation of these things. I should -especially demur to the two suppositions underlying Hirt’s theory -that Aryan had at one period a completely flexionless structure, and -that the same sound when occurring in various cases must have had the -same origin: it seems much more probable to me that the _s_ of the -nominative and the _s_ of the genitive were not at first identical.[96] - -That item of the coalescence theory which probably appealed most to -the fancy of scholars and laymen alike was the explanation of the -personal endings in the verbs from the personal pronouns: we have an -_m_ in the first person of the _mi_-verbs (_esmi_) and in the pronoun -_me_, etc., and we have a _t_ in the third person (_esti_) and in a -third-person pronoun or demonstrative (_to_); it is, therefore, quite -natural to think that _esmi_ is simply the root _es_ ‘to be’ + the -pronoun _mi_ ‘I,’ and _esti_ _es_ + the other pronoun, and to extend -this view to the other persons. And yet not even this has been allowed -to stand unchallenged by later disrespectful linguists, headed by A. H. -Sayce (Techmer’s _Zeitschr. f. allg. Sprwiss._ i. 22) and Hirt. As a -matter of fact, the theory is based exclusively on the above-mentioned -correspondence in the first and third persons singular, while the dual -and plural endings do not at all agree with the corresponding personal -pronouns and the endings of the second person can only be compared with -the pronoun through the employment of phonological tricks unworthy of -a scientific linguist. Even in the first person the correspondence is -not complete, for besides _-mi_ we have other endings: _-m_, which -cannot be very well considered a shortened _-mi_ (and which agrees, -as Sayce remarks, much more closely with the accusative ending of -nouns), _-o_ and _-a_, neither of which can be explained from any known -pronoun. There is thus nothing for it except to say, as Brugmann does -(KG § 770): “The origin of the personal endings is not clear”; cf. also -Misteli 47: “The relations between personal endings and the independent -personal pronouns must be much more evident to justify this view.... -The Aryan language offers direct evidence against the assumption that -a sentence has been thus drawn together, because it uses in the verbal -forms of the first and third person sg. pronominal stems which are -otherwise employed only as objects, and, moreover, would here place -the subject after the predicate, though in sentences it observes -the opposite order.” Meillet expresses himself very categorically -(_Bulletin de la Soc. de Ling._ 1911, 143): “Scarcely any linguist who -has studied Aryan languages would venture to affirm that *_-mi_ of the -type Gr. _fēmi_ is an old personal pronoun.” - -The impression left on us by all these cases is that many of the -earlier explanations by agglutination have proved unsatisfactory, and -that linguists are nowadays inclined either to leave the forms entirely -unexplained or else to admit less rectilinear developments, in which -we see the speakers of the old languages groping tentatively after -means of expression and finding them only by devious and circuitous -courses. It is, of course, difficult to classify such explanations, -and the agglutination or coalescence theory has to be supplemented by -various other kinds of explanation; but I think one of these, which -has not received its legitimate share of attention, is important and -distinctive enough to have its own name, and I propose to term it the -‘secretion’ theory. - - -XIX.--§ 13. Secretion. - -By secretion I understand the phenomenon that one integral portion -of a word comes to acquire a grammatical signification which it had -not at first, and is then felt as something added to the word itself. -Secretion thus is a consequence of a ‘metanalysis’ (above, Ch. X § 2); -it shows its full force when the element thus secreted comes to be -added to other words not originally possessing this element. - -A clear instance is offered in the history of some English possessive -pronouns. In Old English _min_ and _þin_ the _n_ is kept throughout -as part and parcel of the words themselves, the other cases having -such forms as _mine_, _minum_, _minre_, exactly as in German _mein_, -_meine_, _meinem_, _meiner_, etc. But in Middle English the endings -were gradually dropped, and _min_ and _þin_ for a short time became -the only forms. Soon, however, _n_ was dropped before substantives -beginning with a consonant, but was retained in other positions -(_my_ father--_mine_ uncle, it is _mine_); then the former form was -transferred also to those cases in which the pronoun was used (as -an adjunct) before words beginning with vowels (_my_ father, _my_ -uncle--it is _mine_). The distinction between _my_ and _mine_, _thy_ -and _thine_, which was originally a purely phonetic one, exactly like -that between _a_ and _an_ (_a_ father, _an_ uncle), gradually acquired -a functional value, and now serves to distinguish an adjunct from a -principal (or, to use the terms of some grammars, a conjoint from -an absolute form); _my_ came to be looked upon as the proper form, -while the _n_ of _mine_ was felt as an ending serving to indicate the -function as a principal word. That this is really the instinctive -feeling of the people is shown by the fact that in dialectal and vulgar -speech the same _n_ is added to _his_, _her_, _your_ and _their_, to -form the new pronouns _hisn_, _hern_, _yourn_, _theirn_: “He that prigs -what isn’t hisn, when he’s cotch’d, is sent to prison. She that prigs -what isn’t hern, At the treadmill takes a turn.” - -Another instance of secretion is _-en_ as a plural ending in E. _oxen_, -G. _ochsen_, etc. Here originally _n_ belonged to the word in all -cases and all numbers, just as much as the preceding _s_; _ox_ was an -_n_ stem in the same way as, for instance, Lat. (homo), homi_n_em, -homi_n_is, etc., or Gr. kuō_n_, ku_n_a, ku_n_os, etc., are _n_ stems. -In Gothic _n_ is found in most of the cases of similar _n_ stems. In -OE. the nom. is _oxa_, the other cases in the sg. _oxan_, pl. _oxan_ -(_oxen_), _oxnum_, _oxena_, but in ME. the _n_-less form is found -throughout the singular (gen. analogically _oxes_), and the plural only -kept _-n_. Thus also a great many other words, e.g. (I give the plural -forms) _apen_, _haren_, _sterren_ (stars), _tungen_, _siden_, _eyen_, -which all of them belonged to the _n_ declension in OE. When _-en_ had -thus become established as a plural sign, it was added analogically to -words which were not originally _n_ stems, e.g. ME. _caren_, _synnen_, -_treen_ (OE. _cara_, _synna_, _treow_), and this ending even seemed -for some time destined to be the most usual plural ending in the South -of England, until it was finally supplanted by _-s_, which had been -the prevalent ending in the North; _eyen_, _foen_, _shoen_ were for -a time in competition with _eyes_, _foes_, _shoes_, and now _-n_ is -only found in _oxen_ (and _children_). In German to-day things are -very much as they were in Southern ME.: _-en_ is kept extensively in -the old _n_ stems and is added to some words which had formerly other -endings, e.g. _hirten_, _soldaten_, _thaten_. The result is that -now plurality is indicated by an ending which had formerly no such -function (which, indeed, had no function at all); for if we look upon -the actual language, _oxen_ (G. _ochsen_) is = _ox_ (_ochs_) singular -+ the plural ending _-en_; only we must not on any account imagine -that the form was originally thus welded together (agglutinated)--and -if in G. _soldaten_ we may speak of _-en_ being glued on to _soldat_, -this ending is not, and has never been, an independent word, but is an -originally insignificative part secreted by other words. - -A closely similar case is the plural ending _-er_. The consonant -originally was _s_, as seen, for instance, in the Gr. and Lat. nom. -_genos_, _genus_, gen. Gr. _gene(s)os_, _genous_, Lat. _generis_ for -older _genesis_. In Gothonic languages _s_, in accordance with a -regular sound shift in this case, became _r_ (through _z_) whenever it -was retained, but in the nom. sg. it was dropped, and thus we have in -OE. sg. _lamb_, _lambe_, _lambes_, but in the pl. _lambru_, _lambrum_, -_lambra_. In English only few words show traces of this flexion, thus -OE. _cild_, pl. _cildru_, ME. _child_, _childer_, whence, with an -added _-en_, our modern _children_. But in German the class had much -more vitality, and we have not only words belonging to it of old, like -_lamm_, pl. _lämmer_, _rind_, _rinder_, but also gradually more and -more words which originally belonged to other classes, but adopted -this ending after it had become a real sign of the plural number, thus -_wörter_, _bücher_. - -There is one trait that should be noticed as highly characteristic -of these instances of secretion, that is, that the occurrence of the -endings originating in this way seems from the first regulated by the -purest accident, seen from the point of view of the speakers: they are -found in some words, but not in others, whereas the endings treated -of under the heading Coalescence are added much more uniformly to the -whole of the vocabulary. But as a similarly irregular or arbitrary -distribution is met with in the case of nearly all flexional endings -in the oldest stages of languages belonging to our family of speech, -the probability is that most of those endings which it is impossible -for us to trace back to their first beginnings have originated through -secretion or similar processes, rather than through coalescence of -independent words or roots. - - -XIX.--§ 14. Extension of Suffixes. - -A special subdivision of secretion comprises those cases in which a -suffix takes over some sound or sounds from words to which it was -added. Clear instances are found in French, where in consequence of the -mutescence of a final consonant some suffixes to the popular instinct -must seem to begin with a consonant, though originally this did not -belong to the suffix. Thus _laitier_, at first formed from _lait_ -+ _ier_, now came to be apprehended as = _lai(t)_ + _tier_, and -_cabaretier_ as _cabare(t)_ + _tier_, and the new suffix was then -used to form such new words as _bijoutier_, _ferblantier_, _cafetier_ -and others. In the same way we have _tabatière_, where we should -expect _tabaquière_, and the predilection for the extended form of the -suffix is evidently strengthened by the syllable division in frequent -formations like _ren-tier_, _por-tier_, _por-tière_, _charpen-tier_. -In old Gothonic we have similar extensions of suffixes, when instead -of _-ing_ we get _-ling_, starting from words like OHG. _ediling_ from -_edili_, ON. _vesling_ from _vesall_, OE. _lytling_ from _lytel_, -etc. Consequently we have in English quite a number of words with the -extended ending: _duckling_, _gosling_, _hireling_, _underling_, etc. -In Gothic some words formed with _-assus_, such as _þiudin-assus_ -‘kingdom,’ were apprehended as formed with _-nassus_, and in all the -related languages the suffix is only known with the initial _n_; thus -in E. _-ness_: _hardness_, _happiness_, _eagerness_, etc.; G. _-keit_ -with its _k_ from adjectives in _-ic_ has already been mentioned (376). -From _criticism_, _Scotticism_, we have _witti-cism_, and Milton has -_witticaster_ on the analogy of _criticaster_, where the suffix of -course is _-aster_, as in _poetaster_. Instead of _-ist_ we also find -in some cases _-nist_: _tobacconist_, _lutenist_ (cf. _botan-ist_, -_mechan-ist_). - -To form a new word it is often sufficient that some existing word is -felt in a vague way to be made up of something + an ending, the latter -being subsequently added on to another word. In Fr. _mérovingien_ the -_v_ of course is legitimate, as the adjective is derived from Mérovée, -Merowig, but this word was made the starting-point for the word -designating the succeeding dynasty: _carlovingien_, where _v_ is simply -taken over as part of the suffix; nowadays historians try to be more -‘correct’ and prefer the adjective _carolingien_, which was unknown to -Littré. _Oligarchy_ is _olig_ + _archy_, but for the opposite notion -the word _poligarchy_ or _polygarchy_ was framed from _poly_ and the -last two syllables of _oli-garchy_, and though now scholars have -made _polyarchy_ the usual form, the word with the intrusive _g_ was -the common form two hundred years ago in English, and corresponding -forms are found in French, Spanish and other languages. _Judgmatical_ -is made on the pattern of _dogmatical_, though there the stem is -_dogmat-_. In jocular German _schwachmatikus_ ‘valetudinarian,’ we have -the same suffix with a different colouring, taken from _rheumatikus_ -(thus also Dan. _svagmatiker_). Swift does not hesitate to speak of a -_sextumvirate_, which suggests _triumvirate_ better than _sexvirate_ -would have done; and Bernard Shaw once writes “his equipage (or -autopage)”--evidently starting from the popular, but erroneous, belief -that _equipage_ is derived from Lat. _equus_ and then dividing the -word _equi_ + _page_. Cf. _Scillonian_ from _Scilly_ on account of -_Devonian_ as if this were _Dev_ + _onian_ instead of _Devon_ + _ian_. - - -XIX.--§ 15. Tainting of Suffixes. - -It will be seen that in some of these instances the suffix has -appropriated to itself not only part of the sound of the stem, but -also part of its signification. This is seen very clearly in the case -of _chandelier_, in French formed from _chandelle_ ‘candle’ with the -suffix _-ier_, of rather vague signification, ‘anything connected -with, or having to do with’; in English the word is used for a hanging -branched frame to hold a number of lights; consequently a similar -apparatus for gas-burners was denominated _gaselier_ (_gasalier_, -_gasolier_), and with the introduction of electricity the formation -has even been extended to _electrolier_. _Vegetarian_ is from the stem -_veget-_ with added _-ari-an_, which ending has no special connexion -with the notion of eating or food, but recently we have seen the new -words _fruitarian_ and _nutarian_, meaning one whose food consists -(exclusively or chiefly) in fruits and nuts. Cf. _solemncholy_, -which according to Payne is in use in Alabama, framed evidently on -_melancholy_, analyzed in a way not approved by Greek scholars. The -whole ending of _septentrionalis_ (from the name of the constellation -_Septem triones_, the seven oxen) is used to form the opposite: -_meridi-onalis_. - -A similar case of ‘tainting’ is found in recent English. The NED, in -the article on the suffix _-eer_, remarks that “in many of the words -so formed there is a more or less contemptuous implication,” but does -not explain this, and has not remarked that it is found only in words -ending in _-teer_ (from words in _-t_). I think this contemptuous -implication starts from _garreteer_ and _crotcheteer_ (perhaps also -_pamphleteer_ and _privateer_); after these were formed the disparaging -words _sonneteer_, _pulpiteer_. During the war (1916, I think) the -additional word _profiteer_[97] came into use, but did not find its -way into the dictionaries till 1919 (Cassell’s). And only the other -day I read in an American publication a new word of the same calibre: -“Against _patrioteering_, against fraud and violence ... Mr. Mencken -has always nobly and bravely contended.” - - -XIX.--§ 16. The Classifying Instinct. - -Man is a classifying animal: in one sense it may be said that the -whole process of speaking is nothing but distributing phenomena, of -which no two are alike in every respect, into different classes on -the strength of perceived similarities and dissimilarities. In the -name-giving process we witness the same ineradicable and very useful -tendency to see likenesses and to express similarity in the phenomena -through similarity in name. Professor Hempl told me that one of his -little daughters, when they had a black kitten which was called _Nig_ -(short for Nigger), immediately christened a gray kitten _Grig_ and -a brown one _Brownig_. Here we see the genesis of a suffix through a -natural process, which has little in common with the gradual weakening -of an originally independent word, as in _-hood_ and the other -instances mentioned above. In children’s speech similar instances are -not unfrequent (cf. Ch. VII § 5); Meringer L 148 mentions a child of -1.7 who had the following forms: _augn_, _ogn_, _agn_, for ‘augen, -ohren, haare.’ How many words formed or transformed in the same way -must we require in order to speak of a suffix? Shall we recognize one -in Romanic _leve_, _greve_ (cf. Fr. _grief_), which took the place -of _leve_, _grave_? Here, as Schuchardt aptly remarks, it was not -only the opposite signification, but also the fact that the words -were frequently uttered shortly after one another, that made one word -influence the other. - -The classifying instinct often manifests itself in bringing -words together in form which have something in common as regards -signification. In this way we have smaller classes and larger classes, -and sometimes it is impossible for us to say in what way the likeness -in form has come about: we can only state the fact that at a given time -the words in question have a more or less close resemblance. But in -other cases it is easy to see which word of the group has influenced -the others or some other. In the examples I am about to give, I -have been more concerned to bring together words that exhibit the -classifying tendency than to try to find out the impetus which directed -the formation of the several groups. - -In OE. we have some names of animals in _-gga_: _frogga_, _stagga_, -_docga_, _wicga_, now _frog_, _stag_, _dog_, _wig_. _Savour_ and -_flavour_ go together, the latter (OFr. _flaur_) having its _v_ from -the former. _Groin_, I suppose, has its diphthong from _loin_; the -older form was _grine_, _grynd(e)_. _Claw_, _paw_ (earlier _powe_, -OFr. _pol_). _Rim_, _brim_. _Hook_, _nook_. _Gruff_, _rough_ (_tough_, -_bluff_, _huff_--_miff_, _tiff_, _whiff_). _Fleer_, _leer_, _jeer_. -_Twig_, _sprig_. _Munch_, _crunch_ (_lunch_). _Without uttering or -muttering a word._ _The trees were lopped and topped._ In old Gothonic -the word for ‘eye’ has got its vowel from the word for ‘ear,’ with -which it was frequently collocated: _augo(n)_, _auso(n)_, but in the -modern languages the two words have again been separated in their -phonetic development. In French I suspect that popular instinct will -class the words _air_, _terre_, _mer_ together as names of what used -to be termed the ‘elements,’ in spite of the different spelling and -origin of the sounds. In Russian _kogot’_ ‘griffe’ (claw), _nogot’_ -‘ongle’ (fingernail), and _lokot’_ ‘coude’ (elbow), three names -of parts of the body, go together in flexion and accent (Boyer et -Speranski, _Manuel de la l. russe_ 33). So do in Latin _culex_ ‘gnat’ -and _pulex_ ‘flea.’ _Atrox_, _ferox_. A great many examples have been -collected by M. Bloomfield, “On Adaptation of Suffixes in Congeneric -Classes of Substantives” (_Am. Journal of Philol._ XII, 1891), from -which I take a few. A considerable number of designations of parts -of the body were formed with heteroclitic declension as _r-n_ stems -(cf. above, XVIII § 2): ‘liver,’ Gr. _hēpar_, _hēpatos_, ‘udder,’ Gr. -_outhar_, _outhatos_, ‘thigh,’ Lat. _femur_, _feminis_, further Aryan -names for blood, wing, viscera, excrement, etc. Other designations of -parts of the body were partly assimilated to this class, having also -_n_ stems in the oblique cases, though their nominative was formed in -a different way. Words for ‘right’ and ‘left’ frequently influence -one another and adopt the same ending, and so do opposites generally: -Bloomfield explains the _t_ in the Gothonic word corresponding to E. -_white_, where from Sanskr. we should expect _th_, _çveta_, as due to -the word for ‘black’; Goth. _hweits_, _swarts_, ON. _hvítr_, _svartr_, -etc. A great many names of birds and other animals appear with the -same ending, Gr. _glaux_ ‘owl,’ _kokkux_ ‘cuckoo,’ _korax_ ‘crow,’ -_ortux_ ‘quail,’ _aix_ ‘goat,’ _alopex_ ‘fox,’ _bombux_ ‘silkworm,’ -_lunx_ ‘lynx’ and many others, also some plant-names. Names for winter, -summer, day, evening, etc., also to a great extent form groups. In -a subsequent article (in IF vi. 66 ff.) Bloomfield pursues the same -line of thought and explains likenesses in various words of related -signification, in direct opposition to the current explanation through -added root-determinatives, as due to blendings (cf. above, Ch. XVII § -6). In Latin the inchoative value of the verbs in _-esco_ is due to -the accidentally inherent continuous character of a few verbs of the -class: _adolesco_, _senesco_, _cresco_; but the same suffix is also -found in the oldest words for ‘asking, wishing, searching,’ retained in -E. _ask_, _wish_, G. _forschen_, which thus become a small group linked -together by form and meaning alike. - - -XIX.--§ 17. Character of Suffixes. - -There seems undoubtedly to be something accidental or haphazard in most -of these transferences of sounds from one word to another through which -groups of phonetically and semantically similar words are created; the -process works unsystematically, or rather, it consists in spasmodic -efforts at regularizing something which is from the start utterly -unsystematic. But where conditions are favourable, i.e. where the -notional connexion is patent and the phonetic element is such that -it can easily be added to many words, the group will tend constantly -to grow larger within the natural boundaries given by the common -resemblance in signification. - -I have no doubt that the vast majority of our formatives, such as -suffixes and flexional endings, have arisen in this way through -transference of some part, which at first was unmeaning in itself, -from one word to another in which it had originally no business, and -then to another and another, taking as it were a certain colouring -from the words in which it is found, and gradually acquiring a more -or less independent signification or function of its own. In long -words, such as were probably frequent in primitive speech, and which -were to the minds of the speakers as unanalyzable as _marmalade_ or -_crocodile_ is to Englishmen nowadays, it would be perhaps most natural -to keep the beginning unchanged and to modify the final syllable or -syllables to bring about conformity with some word with which it was -associated; hence the prevalence of suffixes in our languages, hence -also the less systematic character of these suffixes as compared with -the prefixes, most of which have originated in independent words, -such as adverbs. What is from the merely phonetic point of view the -‘same’ suffix, in different languages may have the greatest variety of -meaning, sometimes no discernible meaning at all, and it is in many -cases utterly impossible to find out why in one particular language it -can be used with one stem and not with another. Anyone going through -the collections in Brugmann’s great _Grammar_ will be struck with this -purely accidental character of the use of most of the suffixes--a fact -which would be simply unthinkable if each of them had originally one -definite, well-determined signification, but which is easy to account -for on the hypothesis here adopted. And then many of them are not -added to ready-made words or ‘roots,’ but form one indivisible whole -with the initial part of the word; cf., for instance, the suffix _-le_ -in English _squabble_, _struggle_, _wriggle_, _babble_, _mumble_, -_bustle_, etc. - - -XIX.--§ 18. Brugmann’s Theory of Gender. - -As I have said, man is a classifying animal, and in his language tends -to express outwardly class distinctions which he feels more or less -vaguely. One of the most important of these class divisions, and at -the same time one of the most difficult to explain, is that of the -three ‘genders’ in our Aryan languages. If we are to believe Brugmann, -we have here a case of what I have in this work termed secretion. In -his well-known paper, “Das Nominalgeschlecht in den indogermanischen -Sprachen” (in Techmer’s _Zs. f. allgem. Sprachwissensch._ 4. 100 ff., -cf. also his reply to Roethe’s criticism, PBB 15. 522) he puts the -question: How did it come about that the old Aryans attached a definite -gender (or sex, geschlecht) to words meaning foot, head, house, town, -Gr. _pous_, for instance, being masculine, _kephalē_ feminine, _oikos_ -masculine, and _polis_ feminine? The generally accepted explanation, -according to which the imagination of mankind looked upon lifeless -things as living beings, is, Brugmann says, unsatisfactory; the -masculine and feminine of grammatical gender are merely unmeaning forms -and have nothing to do with the ideas of masculinity and femininity; -for even where there exists a natural difference of sex, language often -employs only one gender. So in German we have _der hase_, _die maus_, -and _der weibliche hase_ is not felt to be self-contradictory. Again, -in the history of languages we often find words which change their -gender exclusively on account of their form. Thus, in German, many -words in _-e_, such as _traube_, _niere_, _wade_, which were formerly -masculine, have now become feminine, because the great majority of -substantives in _-e_ are feminine (_erde_, _ehre_, _farbe_, etc.). -Nothing accordingly hinders us from supposing that grammatical gender -originally had nothing at all to do with natural sex. The question, -therefore, according to Brugmann, is essentially reduced to this: How -did it come to pass that the suffix _-a_ was used to designate female -beings? At first it had no connexion with femininity, witness Lat. -_aqua_ ‘water’ and hundreds of other words; but among the old words -with that ending there happened to be some denoting females: _mama_ -‘mother’ and _gena_ ‘woman’ (compare E. _quean_, _queen_). Now, in -the history of some suffixes we see that, without any regard to their -original etymological signification, they may adopt something of the -radical meaning of the words to which they are added, and transfer -that meaning to new formations. In this way _mama_ and _gena_ became -the starting-point for analogical formations, as if the idea of female -was denoted by the ending, and new words were formed, e.g. Lat. _dea_ -‘goddess’ from _deus_ ‘god,’ _equa_ ‘mare’ from _equus_ ‘horse,’ etc. -The suffix _-iē-_ or _-ī-_ probably came to denote feminine sex by a -similar process, possibly from Skr. _strī_ ‘woman,’ which may have -given a fem. *_wḷqī_ ‘she-wolf’ to *_wḷqos_ ‘wolf.’ The above is a -summary of Brugmann’s reasoning; it may interest the reader to know -that a closely similar point of view had, several years previously, -been taken by a far-seeing scholar in respect to a totally different -language, namely Hottentot, where, according to Bleek, CG 2. 118-22, -292-9, a class division which had originally nothing to do with sex has -been employed to distinguish natural sex. I transcribe a few of Bleek’s -remarks: “The apparent sex-denoting character which the classification -of the nouns now has in the Hottentot language was evidently imparted -to it after a division of the nouns into classes[98] had taken place. -It probably arose, in the first instance, from the possibly accidental -circumstance that the nouns indicating (respectively) man and woman -were formed with different derivative suffixes, and consequently -belonged to different classes (or genders) of nouns, and that these -suffixes thus began to indicate the distinction of sex in nouns where -it could be distinguished” (p. 122). “To assume, for example, that the -suffix of the m. sg. (_-p_) had originally the meaning of ‘man,’ or the -fem. sg. (_-s_) that of ‘woman,’ would in no way explain the peculiar -division of the nouns into classes as we find it in Hottentot, and -would be opposed to all that is probable regarding the etymology of -these suffixes, and also to the fact that so many nouns are included in -the sex-denoting classes to which the distinction of sex can only be -applied by a great effort.... If the word for ‘man’ were formed with -one suffix (_-p_), and the word indicating ‘woman’ (be it accidentally -or not) by another (_-s_), then other nouns would be formed with the -same suffixes, in analogy with these, until the majority of the nouns -of each sex were formed with certain suffixes which would thus assume -a sex-denoting character” (p. 298). - -Brugmann’s view on Aryan gender has not been unchallenged. The weakest -points in his arguments are, of course, that there are so few old -naturally feminine words in _-a_ and _-i_ to take as starting-points -for such a thoroughgoing modification of the grammatical system, and -that Brugmann was unable to give any striking explanation of the -concord of adjectives and pronouns with words that had not these -endings, but which were nevertheless treated as masculines and -feminines respectively. It would lead us too far here to give any -minute account of the discussion which arose on these points;[99] one -of the most valuable contributions seems to me Jacobi’s suggestion -(_Compositum u. Nebensatz_, 1897, 115 ff.) that the origin of -grammatical gender is not to be sought in the noun, but in the pronoun -(he finds a parallel in the Dravidian languages)--but even he does not -find a fully satisfactory explanation, and the Aryan gender distinction -reaches back to so remote an antiquity, thousands of years before any -literary tradition, that we shall most probably never be able to fathom -all its mysteries. Of late years less attention has been given to the -problem of the feminine, which presented itself to Brugmann, than to -the distinction between two classes, one of which was characterized -by the use of a nominative in _-s_, which is now looked upon as a -‘transitive-active’ case, and the other by no ending or by an ending -_-m_, which is the same as was used as the accusative in the first -class (an ‘intransitive-passive’ case), and an attempt has been made -to see in the distinction something analogous to the division found -in Algonkin languages between a class of ‘living’ and another of -‘lifeless’ things--though these two terms are not to be taken in the -strictly scientific sense, for primitive men do not reason in the -same way as we do, but ascribe or deny ‘life’ to things according to -criteria which we have great difficulty in apprehending. This would -mean a twofold division into one class comprising the historical -masculines and feminines, and another comprising the neuters. - -As to the feminine, we saw two old endings characterizing that gender, -_a_ and _i_. With regard to the latter, I venture to throw out the -suggestion that it is connected with diminutive suffixes containing -that vowel in various languages: on the whole, the sound [i] has a -natural affinity with the notion of small, slight, insignificant and -weak (see Ch. XX § 8). In some African languages we find two classes, -one comprising men and big things, and the other women and small -things (Meinhof, _Die Sprachen der Hamiten_ 23), and there is nothing -unnatural in the supposition that similar views may have obtained with -our ancestors. This would naturally account for Skr. _vṛk-ī_ ‘she-wolf’ -(orig. little wolf, ‘wolfy’) from Skr. _vṛkas_, _napt-ī_, Lat. -_neptis_, G. _nichte_, Skr. _dēv-ī_, ‘goddess,’ etc. But the feminine -_-a_ is to me just as enigmatic as, say, the _d_ of the old ablative. - - -XIX.--§ 19. Final Considerations. - -The ending _-a_ serves to denote not only female beings, but also -abstracts, and if in later usage it is also applied to males, as -in Latin _nauta_ ‘sailor,’ _auriga_ ‘charioteer,’ this is only a -derived use of the abstracts denoting an activity, sailoring, driving, -etc., just as G. _die wache_, besides the activity of watching, -comes to mean the man on guard, or as _justice_ (Sp. _el justicia_) -comes to mean ‘judge.’ The original sense of _Antonius collega fuit -Ciceronis_ was ‘A. was the co-election of C.’ (Osthoff, _Verbum in d. -Nominal-compos._, 1878, 263 ff., Delbrück, _Synt. Forsch._ 4. 6). - -The same _-a_ is finally used as the plural ending of most neuters, -but, as is now universally admitted (see especially Johannes Schmidt, -_Die Pluralbildungen der indogerm. Neutra_, 1889), the ending here -was originally neither neuter nor plural, but, on the contrary, -feminine and singular. The forms in _-a_ are properly collective -formations like those found, for instance, in Lat. _opera_, gen. -_operæ_, ‘work,’ comp. _opus_ ‘(a piece of) work’; Lat. _terra_ -‘earth,’ comp. Oscan _terum_ ‘plot of ground’; _pugna_ ‘boxing, -fight,’ comp. _pugnus_ ‘fist.’ This explains among other things the -peculiar syntactic phenomenon, which is found regularly in Greek and -sporadically in Sanskrit and other languages, that a neuter plural -subject takes the verb in the singular. Greek _toxa_ is often used -in speaking of a single bow; and the Latin poetic use of _guttura_, -_colla_, _ora_, where only one person’s throat, neck or face is meant, -points similarly to a period of the past when these words did not -denote the plural. We can now see the reason of this _-a_ being in -some cases also the plural sign of masculine substantives: Lat. _loca_ -from _locus_, _joca_ from _jocus_, etc.; Gr. _sita_ from _sitos_. Joh. -Schmidt refers to similar plural formations in Arabic; and as we have -seen (Ch. XIX § 9), the Bantu plural prefixes had probably a similar -origin. And we are thus constantly reminded that languages must often -make the most curious _détours_ to arrive at a grammatical expression -for things which appear to us so self-evident as the difference -between he and she, or that between one and more than one. Expressive -simplicity in linguistic structure is not a primitive, but a derived -quality. - -FOOTNOTES: - -[89] Why so? Did sheep and cows also begin with vowels only, adding _b_ -and _m_ afterwards to make up their _bah_ and _moo_? - -[90] The examples taken from Gabelentz’s _Grammar_ and an article in -Techmer’s _Internat. Zeitschrift_ I. - -[91] I must also mention A. Conrady, _Eine indochinesische -Causativ-denominativ-bildung_ (Leipzig, 1896), in which Lepsius’s -theory is carried a great step further and it is demonstrated with -very great learning that many of the tone relations (a well as -modifications of initial sounds) of Chinese and kindred languages find -their explanation in the previous existence of prefixes which are now -extinct, but which can still be pointed out in Tibetan. Though I ought, -therefore, to have spoken of prefixes instead of ‘flexional endings’ -above, p. 371, the essence of the contention that prehistoric Chinese -must have had a polysyllabic and non-isolating structure is thus borne -out by the researches of competent specialists in this field. - -[92] Madvig Kl 170, Max Müller L 1. 271, Whitney OLS 1. 283, G 124, -Paul P 1st ed. 181, repeated in the following editions, see 4th, 1909, -350 and 347, 349; Brugmann VG 1889, 2. 1 (but in 2nd ed. this has been -struck out in favour of hopeless skepticism), Schuchardt, _Anlass d. -Volapüks_ 11, Gabelentz Spr 189, Tegnér SM 53, Sweet, _New Engl. Gr._ § -559, Storm, _Engl. Phil._ 673, Rozwadowski, _Wortbildung u. Wortbed._, -Uhlenbeck, _Karakt. d. bask. Gramm._ 24, Sütterlin WGS 1902, 122, -Porzezinski, Spr 1910, 229. - -[93] Two explanations of this formative element were given by the old -school: according to Schleicher C § 290, it was the root _ja_ of the -relative pronoun; according to Curtius and others it was the root _i_ -‘to go,’ Greek _fer-o-i-mi_ being analyzed as ‘I go to bear,’ whence, -by an easy (?) transition, ‘I should like to bear,’ etc. - -[94] Cf. Sommer, Lat. 528, and on Armenian and Tokharian _r_ forms MSL -18. 10 ff. and Feist KI 455. But it must not be overlooked that H. -Pedersen (KZ 40. 166 ff.) has revived and strengthened the old theory -that _r_ in Italic and Keltic is an original _se_. - -[95] If _s_ was a definite article, why should it be used only with -some stems and not with others? Why should neuters never require a -definite article? - -[96] While it is difficult to see the relation between a demonstrative -pronoun or a deictic particle and genitival function, it would be easy -enough to understand the latter if we started from a possessive pronoun -(ejus, suus), and, curiously enough, we find this very sound _s_ used -as a sign for the genitive in two independent languages, starting from -that notion. In Indo-Portuguese we have _gobernadors casa_ ‘governor’s -house,’ from _gobernador su casa_ (above, Ch. XI § 12, p. 213), and -in the South-African ‘Taal’ the usual expression for the genitive is -by means of _syn_, which is generally shortened into _se_ (_s_) and -glued enclitically to the substantive, even to feminines and plurals: -_Marie-se boek_ ‘Maria’s book,’ _di gowweneur se hond_ ‘the governor’s -dog’ (H. Meyer, _Die Sprache der Buren_, 1901, p. 40, where also the -confusion with the adjective ending _-s_, in Dutch spelt _-sch_, is -mentioned. For the construction compare G. _dem vater sein hut_ and -others from various languages; cf. the appendix on E. _Bill Stumps his -mark_ in ChE 182 f.). - -[97] Cf. Lloyd George’s speech at Dundee (_The Times_, July 6, 1917): -“The Government will not permit the burdens of the country to be -increased by what is called ‘profiteering.’ Although I have been -criticized for using that word, I believe on the whole it is a rather -good one. It is _profit-eer-ing_ as distinguished from _profit-ing_. -Profiting is fair recompense for services rendered, either in -production or distribution; profiteering is an extravagant recompense -given for services rendered. I believe that unfair in peace. In war it -is an outrage.” - -[98] Bleek is here thinking of classes like those of the Bantu -languages, which have nothing to do with sex. - -[99] For bibliography and criticism see Wheeler in _Journ. of Germ. -Philol._ 2. 528 ff., and especially Josselin de Jong in _Tijdschr. -v. Ned. Taal- en Letterk._ 29. 21 ff., and the same writer’s thesis -_De Waardeeringsonderscheiding van levend en levenloos in het -Indogermaansch vergel. m. hetzelfde verschijnsel in Algonkin-talen_ -(Leiden, 1913). Cf. also Hirt GDS 45 ff. - - - - -CHAPTER XX - -SOUND SYMBOLISM - - § 1. Sound and Sense. § 2. Instinctive Feeling. § 3. Direct - Imitation. § 4. Originator of the Sound. § 5. Movement. § 6. Things - and Appearances. § 7. States of Mind. § 8. Size and Distance. - § 9. Length and Strength of Words and Sounds. § 10. General - Considerations. § 11. Importance of Suggestiveness. § 12. Ancient and - Modern Times. - - -XX.--§ 1. Sound and Sense. - -The idea that there is a natural correspondence between sound and -sense, and that words acquire their contents and value through a -certain sound symbolism, has at all times been a favourite one with -linguistic dilettanti, the best-known examples being found in Plato’s -_Kratylos_. Greek and Latin grammarians indulge in the wildest -hypotheses to explain the natural origin of such and such a word, as -when Nigidius Figulus said that in pronouncing _vos_ one puts forward -one’s lips and sends out breath in the direction of the other person, -while this is not the case with _nos_. With these early writers, to -make guesses at sound symbolism was the only way to etymologize; no -wonder, therefore, that we with our historical methods and our wider -range of knowledge find most of their explanations ridiculous and -absurd. But this does not justify us in rejecting any idea of sound -symbolism: abusus non tollit usum! - -Humboldt (Versch 79) says that “language chooses to designate objects -by sounds which partly in themselves, partly in comparison with others, -produce on the ear an impression resembling the effect of the object on -the mind; thus _stehen_, _stätig_, _starr_, the impression of firmness, -Sanskrit _lī_ ‘to melt, diverge,’ that of liquidity or solution -(des zerfliessenden).... In this way objects that produce similar -impressions are denoted by words with essentially the same sounds, -thus _wehen_, _wind_, _wolke_, _wirren_, _wunsch_, in all of which -the vacillating, wavering motion with its confused impression on the -senses is expressed through ... _w_.” Madvig’s objection (1842, 13 = Kl -64) that we need only compare four of the words Humboldt quotes with -the corresponding words in the very nearest sister-language, Danish -_blæse_, _vind_, _sky_, _ønske_, to see how wrong this is, seems -to me a little cheap: Humboldt himself expressly assumes that much -of primitive sound symbolism may have disappeared in course of time -and warns us against making this kind of explanation a ‘constitutive -principle,’ which would lead to great dangers (“so setzt man sich -grossen gefahren aus und verfolgt einen in jeder rücksicht schlüpfrigen -pfad”). Moreover _blæse_ (E. _blow_, Lat. _flare_) is just as imitative -as _wind_, _vind_: no one of course would pretend that there was only -one way of expressing the same sense perception. Among Humboldt’s -examples _wolke_ and _wunsch_ are doubtful, but I do not see that this -affects the general truth of his contention that there is something -like sound symbolism in _some_ words. - -Nyrop in his treatment of this question (Gr IV § 545 f.) repeats -Madvig’s objection that the same name can denote various objects, -that the same object can be called by different names, and that the -significations of words are constantly changing; further, that the -same group of sounds comes to mean different things according to the -language in which it occurs. He finally exclaims: “How to explain [by -means of sound symbolism] the difference in signification between -_murus_, _nurus_, _durus_, _purus_, etc.?” - - -XX.--§ 2. Instinctive Feeling. - -Yes, of course it would be absurd to maintain that all words at all -times in all languages had a signification corresponding exactly to -their sounds, each sound having a definite meaning once for all. But -is there really much more logic in the opposite extreme, which denies -any kind of sound symbolism[100] (apart from the small class of evident -echoisms or ‘onomatopœia’) and sees in our words only a collection of -wholly accidental and irrational associations of sound and meaning? It -seems to me that the conclusion in this case is as false as if you were -to infer that because on one occasion X told a lie, he therefore never -tells the truth. The correct conclusion would be: as he has told a lie -once, we cannot always trust him; we must be on our guard with him--but -sometimes he may tell the truth. Thus, also, sounds may in some cases -be symbolic of their sense, even if they are not so in all words. If -linguistic historians are averse to admitting sound symbolism, this is -a natural consequence of their being chiefly occupied with words which -have undergone regular changes in sound and sense; and most of the -words which form the staple of linguistic books are outside the domain -of sound symbolism. - -There is no denying, however, that there are words which we feel -instinctively to be adequate to express the ideas they stand for, and -others the sounds of which are felt to be more or less incongruous with -their signification. Future linguists will have to find out in detail -what domains of human thought admit, and what domains do not admit, of -congruous expression through speech sounds, and further what sounds are -suitable to express such and such a notion, for though it is clear--to -take only a few examples--that there is little to choose between -_apple_ and _pomme_, or between _window_ and _fenster_, as there is no -sound or sound group that has any natural affinity with such thoroughly -concrete and composite ideas as those expressed by these words, yet -on the other hand everybody must feel that the word _roll_, _rouler_, -_rulle_, _rollen_ is more adequate than the corresponding Russian word -_katat’_, _katit’_. - -It would be an interesting task to examine in detail and systematically -what ideas lend themselves to symbolic presentation and what sounds are -chosen for them in different languages. That, however, could only be -done on the basis of many more examples than I can find space for in -this work, and I shall, therefore, only attempt to give a preliminary -enumeration of the most obvious classes, with a small fraction of the -examples I have collected.[101] - - -XX.--§ 3. Direct Imitation. - -The simplest case is the direct imitation of the sound, thus _clink_, -_clank_, _ting_, _tinkle_ of various metallic sounds, _splash_, -_bubble_, _sizz_, _sizzle_ of sounds produced by water, _bow-wow_, -_bleat_, _roar_ of sounds produced by animals, and _snort_, _sneeze_, -_snigger_, _smack_, _whisper_, _grunt_, _grumble_ of sounds produced by -human beings. Examples might easily be multiplied of such ‘echoisms’ -or ‘onomatopœia’ proper. But, as our speech-organs are not capable of -giving a perfect imitation of all ‘unarticulated’ sounds, the choice of -speech-sounds is to a certain extent accidental, and different nations -have chosen different combinations, more or less conventionalized, -for the same sounds; thus _cock-a-doodle-doo_, Dan. _kykeliky_, Sw. -_kukeliku_, G. _kikeriki_, Fr. _coquelico_, for the sound of a cock; -and for _whisper_: Dan. _hviske_, ON. _kvisa_, G. _flüstern_, Fr. -_chuchoter_, Sp. _susurar_. The continuity of a sound is frequently -indicated by _l_ or _r_ after a stopped consonant: _rattle_, _rumble_, -_jingle_, _clatter_, _chatter_, _jabber_, etc. - - -XX.--§ 4. Originator of the Sound. - -Next, the echoic word designates the being that produces the sound, -thus the birds _cuckoo_ and _peeweet_ (Dan. _vibe_, G. _kibitz_, Fr. -pop. _dix-huit_). - -A special subdivision of particular interest comprises those names, -or nicknames, which are sometimes popularly given to nations from -words continually occurring in their speech. Thus the French used to -call an Englishman a _god-damn_ (_godon_), and in China an English -soldier is called _a-says_ or _I-says_. In Java a Frenchman is called -_orang-deedong_ (_orang_ ‘man’), in America _ding-dong_, and during -the Napoleonic wars the French were called in Spain _didones_, from -_dis-donc_; another name for the same nation is _wi-wi_ (Australia), -_man-a-wiwi_ (in Beach-la-mar), or _oui-men_ (New Caledonia). In -Eleonore Christine’s _Jammersminde_ 83 I read, “Ich habe zwei _parle -mi franço_ gefangen,” and correspondingly Goldsmith writes (Globe ed. -624): “Damn the French, the _parle vous_, and all that belongs to them. -What makes the bread rising? the _parle vous_ that devour us.” In -Rovigno the surrounding Slavs are called _čuje_ from their exclamation -_čuje_ ‘listen, I say,’ and in Hungary German visitors are called -_vigéc_ (from _wie geht’s?_), and customs officers _vartapiszli_ (from -_wart’ a bissl_). Round Panama everything native is called _spiggoty_, -because in the early days the Panamanians, when addressed, used to -reply, “No spiggoty [speak] Inglis.” In Yokohama an English or American -sailor is called _Damuraïsu H’to_ from ‘Damn your eyes’ and Japanese -H’to ‘people.’[102] - - -XX.--§ 5. Movement. - -Thirdly, as sound is always produced by some movement and is nothing -but the impression which that movement makes on the ear, it is quite -natural that the movement itself may be expressed by the word for its -sound: the two are, in fact, inseparable. Note, for instance, such -verbs as _bubble_, _splash_, _clash_, _crack_, _peck_. Human actions -may therefore be denoted by such words as to _bang_ the door, or -(with slighter sounds) to _tap_ or _rap_ at a door. Hence also the -substantives a _tap_ or a _rap_ for the action, but the substantive may -also come to stand for the implement, as when from the verb to _hack_, -‘to cut, chop off, break up hard earth,’ we have the noun _hack_, ‘a -mattock or large pick.’ - -Then we have words expressive of such movements as are not to the -same extent characterized by loud sounds; thus a great many words -beginning with _l_-combinations, _fl-_: _flow_, _flag_ (Dan. _flagre_), -_flake_, _flutter_, _flicker_, _fling_, _flit_, _flurry_, _flirt_; -_sl-_: _slide_, _slip_, _slive_; _gl-_: _glide_. Hence adjectives like -_fleet_, _slippery_, _glib_. Sound and sight may have been originally -combined in such expressions for an uncertain walk as _totter_, -_dodder_, dialectical _teeter_, _titter_, _dither_, but in cases of -this kind the audible element may be wanting, and the word may come -to be felt as symbolic of the movement as such. This is also the -case with many expressions for the sudden, rapid movement by which -we take hold of something; as a short vowel, suddenly interrupted -by a stopped consonant, serves to express the sound produced by a -very rapid striking movement (_pat_, _tap_, _knock_, etc.), similar -sound combinations occur frequently for the more or less noiseless -seizing of a thing (with the teeth or with the hand): _snap_, _snack_, -_snatch_, _catch_, Fr. _happer_, _attraper_, _gripper_, E. _grip_, -Dan. _hapse_, _nappe_, Lat. _capio_, Gr. _kaptō_, Armenian _kap_ ‘I -seize,’ Turk _kapmak_ (_mak_ infin. ending), etc. (I shall only mention -one derivative meaning that may develop from this group: E. _snack_ -‘a hurried meal,’ in Swift’s time called a _snap_ (_Journ. to Stella_ -270); cf. G. _schnapps_, Dan. _snaps_ ‘glass of spirits.’) E. _chase_ -and _catch_ are both derived from two dialectically different French -forms, ultimately going back to the same late Latin verb _captiare_, -but it is no mere accident that it was the form ‘catch’ that acquired -the meaning ‘to seize,’ not found in French, for it naturally -associated itself with _snatch_, and especially with the now obsolete -verb _latch_ ‘to seize.’ - -There is also a natural connexion between action and sound in the word -to _tickle_, G. _kitzeln_, ON. _kitla_, Dan. _kilde_ (_d_ mute), Nubian -_killi-killi_, and similar forms (Schuchardt, _Nubisch. u. Bask._ 9), -Lat. _titillare_; cp. also the word for the kind of laughter thus -produced: _titter_, G. _kichern_. - - -XX.--§ 6. Things and Appearances. - -Further, we have the extension of symbolical designation to things; -here, too, there is some more or less obvious association of what is -only visible with some sound or sounds. This has been specially studied -by Hilmer, to whose book (Sch) the reader is referred for numerous -examples, e.g. p. 237 ff., _knap_ ‘a thick stick, a knot of wood, a bit -of food, a protuberance, a small hill;’ _knop_ ‘a boss, stud, button, -knob, a wart, pimple, the bud of a flower, a promontory,’ with the -variants _knob_, _knup_.... Hilmer’s word-lists from German and English -comprise 170 pages! - -There is also a natural association between high tones (sounds with -very rapid vibrations) and light, and inversely between low tones and -darkness, as is seen in the frequent use of adjectives like ‘light’ -and ‘dark’ in speaking of notes. Hence the vowel [i] is felt to be -more appropriate for light, and [u] for dark, as seen most clearly in -the contrast between _gleam_, _glimmer_, _glitter_ on the one hand and -_gloom_ on the other (Zangwill somewhere writes: “The gloom of night, -relieved only by the gleam from the street-lamp”); the word _light_ -itself, which has now a diphthong which is not so adequate to the -meaning, used to have the vowel [i] like G. _licht_; for the opposite -notions we have such words as G. _dunkel_, Dan. _mulm_, Gr. _amolgós_, -_skótos_, Lat. _obscurus_, and with another ‘dark’ vowel E. _murky_, -Dan. _mörk_. - - -XX.--§ 7. States of Mind. - -From this it is no far cry to words for corresponding states of mind: -to some extent the very same words are used, as _gloom_ (Dowden writes: -“The good news was needed to cast a gleam on the gloom that encompassed -Shelley”); hence also _glum_, _glumpy_, _glumpish_, _grumpy_, _the -dumps_, _sulky_. If E. _moody_ and _sullen_ have changed their -significations (OE. _modig_ ‘high-spirited,’ ME. _solein_ ‘solitary’), -sound symbolism, if I am not mistaken, counts for something in the -change; the adjectives now mean exactly the same as Dan. _mut_, _but_. - -If _grumble_ comes to mean the expression of a mental state of -dissatisfaction, the connexion between the sound of the word and its -sense is even more direct, for the verb is imitative of the sound -produced in such moods, cf. _mumble_ and _grunt_, _gruntle_. The -name of Mrs. _Grundy_ is not badly chosen as a representative of -narrow-minded conventional morality. - -A long list might be given of symbolic expressions for dislike, -disgust, or scorn; here a few hints only can find place. First we -have the same dull or dump (back) vowels as in the last paragraph: -_blunder_, _bungle_, _bung_, _clumsy_, _humdrum_, _humbug_, _strum_, -_slum_, _slush_, _slubber_, _sloven_, _muck_, _mud_, _muddle_, _mug_ -(various words, but all full of contempt), _juggins_ (a silly person), -_numskull_ (old _numps_, _nup_, _nupson_), _dunderhead_, _gull_, _scug_ -(at Eton a dirty or untidy boy).... Many words begin with _sl-_ (we -have already seen some): _slight_, _slim_, _slack_, _sly_, _sloppy_, -_slipslop_, _slubby_, _slattern_, _slut_, _slosh_.... Initial labials -are also frequent.[103] After the vowel we have very often the sound -[ʃ] or [tʃ], as in _trash_, _tosh_, _slosh_, _botch_, _patch_; cf. also -G. _kitsch_ (bad picture, smearing), _patsch(e)_ (mire, anything -worthless), _quatsch_ (silly nonsense), _putsch_ (riot, political _coup -de main_). E. _bosh_ (nonsense) is said to be a Turkish loan-word; it -has become popular for the same reason for which the French nickname -_boche_ for a German was widely used during the World War. Let me -finally mention the It. derivative suffix _-accio_, as in _poveraccio_ -(miserable), _acquaccia_ (bad water), and _-uccio_, as in _cavalluccio_ -(vile horse). - - -XX.--§ 8. Size and Distance. - -The vowel [i], especially in its narrow or thin variety, is -particularly appropriate to express what is small, weak, insignificant, -or, on the other hand, refined or dainty. It is found in a great many -adjectives in various languages, e.g. _little_, _petit_, _piccolo_, -_piccino_, Magy. _kis_, E. _wee_, _tiny_ (by children often pronounced -_teeny_ [_ti·ni_]), _slim_, Lat. _minor_, _minimus_, Gr. _mikros_; -further, in numerous words for small children or small animals -(the latter frequently used as endearing or depreciative words for -children), e.g. _child_ (formerly with [i·] sound), G. _kind_, Dan. -_pilt_, E. _kid_, _chit_, _imp_, _slip_, _pigmy_, _midge_, Sp. _chico_, -or for small things: _bit_, _chip_, _whit_, Lat. _quisquiliæ_, -_mica_, E. _tip_, _pin_, _chink_, _slit_.... The same vowel is found -in diminutive suffixes in a variety of languages, as E. _-y_, _-ie_ -(_Bobby_, _baby_, _auntie_, _birdie_), Du. _-ie_, _-je_ (_koppie_ -‘little hill’), Gr. _-i-_ (_paid-i-on_ ‘little boy’), Goth. _-ein_, -pronounced [i·n] (_gumein_ ‘little man’), E. _-kin_, _-ling_, Swiss -German _-li_, It. _-ino_, Sp. _-ico_, _-ito_, _-illo_.... - -As smallness and weakness are often taken to be characteristic of -the female sex, I suspect that the Aryan feminine suffix _-i_, as in -Skr. _vṛkī_ ‘she-wolf,’ _naptī_ ‘niece,’ originally denotes smallness -(‘wolfy’), and in the same way we find the vowel _i_ in many feminine -suffixes; thus late Lat. _-itta_ (_Julitta_, etc., whence Fr. _-ette_, -_Henriette_, etc.), _-ina_ (_Carolina_), further G. _-in_ (_königin_), -Gr. _-issa_ (_basilissa_ ‘queen’), whence Fr. _-esse_, E. _-ess_. - -The same vowel [i] is also symbolical of a very short time, as in the -phrases _in a jiff_, _jiffy_, Sc. _in a clink_, Dan. _i en svip_; and -correspondingly we have adjectives like _quick_, _swift_, _vivid_ -and others. No wonder, then, that the Germans feel their word for -‘lightning,’ _blitz_, singularly appropriate to the effect of light and -to the shortness of duration.[104] - -It has often been remarked[105] that in corresponding pronouns and -adverbs the vowel _i_ frequently indicates what is nearer, and other -vowels, especially _a_ or _u_, what is farther off; thus Fr. _ci_, -_là_, E. _here_, _there_, G. _dies_, _das_, Low G. _dit_, _dat_, Magy. -_ez_, _emez_ ‘this,’ _az_, _amaz_ ‘that,’ _itt_ ‘here,’ _ott_ ‘there,’ -Malay _iki_ ‘this,’ _ika_ ‘that, a little removed,’ _iku_ ‘yon, farther -away.’ In Hamitic languages _i_ symbolizes the near and _u_ what is far -away. We may here also think of the word _zigzag_ as denoting movement -in alternate turns here and there; and if in the two E. pronouns _this_ -and _that_ the old neuter forms have prevailed (OE. m. _þes_, _se_, -f. _þeos_, _seo_, n. _þis_, _þæt_) the reason (or one of the reasons) -may have been that a characteristic difference of vowels in the two -contrasted pronouns was thus secured. - - -XX.--§ 9. Length and Strength of Words and Sounds. - -Shorter and more abrupt forms are more appropriate to certain states of -mind, longer ones to others. An imperative may be used both for command -and for a more or less humble appeal or entreaty; in Magyar dialects -there are short forms for command: _írj_, _dolgozz_; long for entreaty: -_írjál_, _dolgozzál_ (Simonyi US 359, 214). Were Lat. _dic_, _duc_, -_fac_, _fer_ used more than other imperatives in commands? The fact -that they alone lost _-e_ might indicate that this was so. On the other -hand the imperatives _es_, _este_ and _i_ had to yield to the fuller -(and more polite) _esto_, _estote_, _vade_, and _scito_ is always said -instead of _sci_ (Wackernagel, _Gött. Ges. d. Wiss._, 1906, 182, on the -avoidance of too short forms in general). Other languages, which have -only one form for the imperative, soften the commanding tone by adding -some word like _please_, _bitte_. - -An emotional effect is obtained in some cases by lengthening a word -by some derivative syllables, in themselves unmeaning; thus in Danish -words for ‘lengthy’ or ‘tiresome’: _langsommelig_, _kedsommelig_, -_evindelig_ for _lang(som)_, _kedelig_, _evig_. (Cf. Ibsen, _Når vi -døde vågner_ 98: Du er kanske ble’t ked af dette evige samliv med -mig.--Evige? Sig lige så godt: evindelige.) In the same way the effect -of _splendid_ is strengthened in slang: _splendiferous_, _splendidous_, -_splendidious_, _splendacious_. A long word like _aggravate_ is felt to -be more intense than _vex_ (Coleman)--and that may be the reason why -the long word acquires a meaning that is strange to its etymology. And -“to disburden one’s self of a sense of contempt, a robust full-bodied -detonation, like, for instance, _platitudinous_, is, unquestionably, -very much more serviceable than any evanescing squib of one or two -syllables” (Fitzedward Hall). Cf. also _multitudinous_, _multifarious_. - -We see now the emotional value of some ‘mouth-filling’ words, some -of which may be considered symbolical expansions of existing words -(what H. Schröder terms ‘streckformen’), though others cannot be -thus explained; not unfrequently the effect of length is combined -with some of the phonetic effects mentioned above. Such words are, -e.g., _slubberdegullion_ ‘dirty fellow,’ _rumbustious_ ‘boisterous,’ -_rumgumption_, _rumfustian_, _rumbullion_ (cf. _rumpuncheon_ ‘cask of -rum’ as a term of abuse in Stevenson, _Treas. Isl._ 48, “the cowardly -son of a rum-puncheon”), _rampallion_ ‘villain,’ _rapscallion_, -_ragamuffin_; _sculduddery_ ‘obscenity’; _cantankerous_ ‘quarrelsome,’ -U.S. also _rantankerous_ (cf. _cankerous_, _rancorous_); _skilligalee_ -‘miserable gruel,’ _flabbergast_ ‘confound,’ _catawampous_ (or -_-ptious_) ‘fierce’ (“a high-sounding word with no very definite -meaning,” NED); Fr. _hurluberlu_ ‘crazy’ and the synonymous Dan. -_tummelumsk_, Norw. _tullerusk_. - -In this connexion one may mention the natural tendency to lengthen -and to strengthen single sounds under the influence of strong feeling -and in order to intensify the effect of the spoken word; thus, in -‘it’s very cold’ both the diphthong [ou] and the [l] may be pronounced -extremely long, in ‘terribly dull’ the [l] is lengthened, in ‘extremely -long’ either the vowel [ɔ] or the [ŋ] (or both) may be lengthened. -In Fr. ‘c’était horrible’ the trill of the [r] becomes very long -and intense (while the same effect is not generally possible in the -corresponding English word, because the English [r] is not trilled, but -pronounced by one flap of the tip). In some cases a lengthening due to -such a psychological cause may permanently alter a word, as when Lat. -_totus_ in It. has become _tutto_ (Fr. _tout_, _toute_ goes back to -the same form, while Sp. _todo_ has preserved the form corresponding -to the Lat. single consonant). An interesting collection of such cases -from the Romanic tongues has been published by A. J. Carnoy (_Mod. -Philol._ 15. 31, July 1917), who justly emphasizes the symbolic value -of the change and the special character of the words in which it occurs -(pet-names, children’s words, ironic or derisive words, imitative -words ...). He says: “While to a phonetician the phenomenon would -seem capricious, its apportionment in the vocabulary is quite natural -to a psychologist. In fact, reduplication, be it of syllables or of -consonants, generally has that character in languages. One finds it in -perfective tenses, in intensive or frequentative verbs, in the plural, -and in collectives. In most cases it is a reduplication of syllables, -but a lengthening of vowels is not rare and the reinforcement of -consonants is also found. In Chinook, for instance, the emotional -words, both diminutive and augmentative, are expressed by increasing -the stress of consonants. It is, of course, also well known that -in Semitic the intensive radical of verbs is regularly formed by a -reduplication of consonants. To a stem _qatal_, e.g., answers an -intensive: Eth. _qattala_, Hebr. _qittel_. Cf. Hebr. _shibbar_ ‘to cut -in small pieces’ [cf. below], _hillech_ ‘to walk,’ _qibber_ ‘to bury -many,’ etc. Cf. Brockelmann, _Vergl. Gramm._, p. 244.” - -I add a few more examples from Misteli (428 f.) of this Semitic -strengthening: the first vowel is lengthened to express a tendency or -an attempt: _qatala jaqtulu_ ‘kill’ (in the third person masc., the -former in the prefect-aorist, the latter in the imperfect-durative, -where _ja_, _ju_ is the sign of the third person m.), _qātala juqātilu_ -‘try to kill, fight’; _faXara jufXaru_ ‘excel in fame,’ _fāXara -jufāXiru_ ‘try to excel, vie.’ Through lengthening (doubling) of a -consonant an intensification of the action is denoted: Hebr. _šāβar -jišbōr_ ‘zerbrechen,’ _šibbēr jẹšabbēr_ ‘zerschmettern,’ Arab. _ḍaraba -jaḍrubu_ ‘strike,’ _ḍarraba juḍarribu_ ‘beat violently, or repeatedly’; -sometimes the change makes a verb into a causative or transitive, etc. - -I imagine that we have exactly the same kind of strengthening for -psychological (symbolical) reasons in a number of verbs where Danish -has _pp_, _tt_, _kk_ by the side of _b_, _d_, _g_ (spirantic): _pippe_ -_pibe_, _stritte_ _stride_, _snitte_ _snide_, _skøtte_ _skøde_, -_splitte_ _splide_, _skrikke_ _skrige_, _lukke_ _luge_, _hikke_ _hige_, -_sikke_ _sige_, _kikke_ _kige_, _prikke_ _prige_ (cf. also _sprække_ -_sprænge_). Some of these forms are obsolete, others dialectal, but it -would take us too far in this place to deal with the words in detail. -It is customary to ascribe this gemination to an old _n_ derivative -(see, e.g., Brugmann VG 1. 390, Streitberg Urg pp. 135, 138, Noreen UL -154), but it does not seem necessary to conjure up an _n_ from the dead -to make it disappear again immediately, as the mere strengthening of -the consonant itself to express symbolically the strengthening of the -action has nothing unnatural in it. Cf. also G. _placken_ by the side -of _plagen_. The opposite change, a weakening, may have taken place in -E. _flag_ (cf. OFr. _flaquir_, to become flaccid), _flabby_, earlier -_flappy_, _drib_ from _drip_, _slab_, if from OFr. _esclape_, _clod_ by -the side of _clot_, and possibly _cadge_, _bodge_, _grudge_, _smudge_, -which had all of them originally _-tch_. But the common modification in -sense is not so easily perceived here as in the cases of strengthening. - -I may here, for the curiosity of the thing, mention that in a -‘language’ coined by two English children (a vocabulary of which was -communicated to me by one of the inventors through Miss I. C. Ward, -of the Department of Phonetics, University College, London) there was -a word _bal_ which meant ‘place,’ but the bigger the place the longer -the vowel was made, so that with three different quantities it meant -‘village,’ ‘town’ and ‘city’ respectively. The word for ‘go’ was -_dudu_, “the greater the speed of the going, the more quickly the word -was said--[dœ·dœ·] walk slowly.” Cf. Humboldt, ed. Steinthal 82: “In -the southern dialect of the Guarani language the suffix of the perfect -_yma_ is pronounced more or less slowly according to the more or less -remoteness of the past to be indicated.” - - -XX.--§ 10. General Considerations. - -Sound symbolism, as we have considered it in this chapter, has a very -wide range of application, from direct imitation of perceived natural -sounds to such small quantitative changes of existing non-symbolic -words as may be used for purely grammatical purposes. But in order to -obtain a true valuation of this factor in the life of language it is of -importance to keep in view the following considerations: - -(1) No language utilizes sound symbolism to its full extent, but -contains numerous words that are indifferent to or may even jar with -symbolism. To express smallness the vowel [i] is most adequate, but it -would be absurd to say that that vowel always implies smallness, or -that smallness is always expressed by words containing that vowel: it -is enough to mention the words _big_ and _small_, or to point to the -fact that _thick_ and _thin_ have the same vowel, to repudiate such a -notion. - -(2) Words that have been symbolically expressive may cease to be so in -consequence of historical development, either phonetic or semantic or -both. Thus the name of the bird _crow_ is not now so good an imitation -of the sound made by the bird as OE. _crawe_ was (Dan. _krage_, Du. -_kraai_). Thus, also, the verbs _whine_, _pipe_ were better imitations -when the vowel was still [i·] (as in Dan. _hvine_, _pibe_). But to -express the sound of a small bird the latter word is still pronounced -with the vowel [i] either long or short (_peep_, _pip_), the word -having been constantly renewed and as it were reshaped by fresh -imitation; cf. on Irish _wheen_ and dialectal _peep_, XV § 8. Lat. -_pipio_ originally meant any ‘peeping bird,’ but when it came to -designate one particular kind of birds, it was free to follow the usual -trend of phonetic development, and so has become Fr. _pigeon_ [piʒɔ̃], -E. _pigeon_ [pidʒin]. E. _cuckoo_ has resisted the change from [u] -to ʌ as in _cut_, because people have constantly heard the sound and -fashioned the name of the bird from it. I once heard a Scotch lady say -[kʌku·], but on my inquiry she told me that there were no cuckoos in -her native place; hence the word had there been treated as any other -word containing the short [u]. The same word is interesting in another -way; it has resisted the old Gothonic consonant-shift, and thus has the -same consonants as Skt. _kōkiláḥ_, Gr. _kókkux_, Lat. _cuculus_. On the -general preservation of significative sounds, cf. Ch. XV § 8. - -(3) On the other hand, some words have in course of time become more -expressive than they were at first; we have something that may be -called secondary echoism or secondary symbolism. The verb _patter_ -comes from _pater_ (= _paternoster_), and at first meant to repeat that -prayer, to mumble one’s prayers; but then it was associated with the -homophonous verb _patter_ ‘to make a rapid succession of _pats_’ and -came under the influence of echoic words like _prattle_, _chatter_, -_jabber_; it now, like these, means ‘to talk rapidly or glibly’ and -is to all intents a truly symbolical word; cf. also the substantive -_patter_ ‘secret lingo, speechifying, talk.’ _Husky_ may at first have -meant only “full of husks, of the nature of a husk” (NED), but it could -not possibly from that signification have arrived at the now current -sense ‘dry in the throat, hoarse’ if it had not been that the sound of -the adjective had reminded one of the sound of a hoarse voice. Dan. -_pöjt_ ‘poor drink, vile stuff’ is now felt as expressive of contempt, -but it originates in _Poitou_, an innocent geographical name of a kind -of wine, like _Bordeaux_; it is now connected with other scornful words -like _spröjt_ and _döjt_. - -In E. _little_ the symbolic vowel _i_ is regularly developed from OE. -_y_, _lytel_, whose _y_ is a mutated _u_, as seen in OSax. _luttil_; -_u_ also appears in other related languages, and the word thus -originally had nothing symbolical about it. But in Gothic the word -is _leitils_ (_ei_, sounded [i·]) and in ON. _lítinn_, and here the -vowel is so difficult to account for on ordinary principles that the -NED in despair thinks that the two words are “radically unconnected.” -I have no hesitation in supposing that the vowel _i_ is due to sound -symbolism, exactly as the smaller change introduced in modern E. -‘leetle,’ with narrow instead of wide (broad) [i]. In the word for the -opposite meaning, _much_, the phonetic development may also have been -influenced by the tendency to get an adequate vowel, for normally we -should expect the vowel [i] as in Sc. _mickle_, from OE. _micel_. In -E. _quick_ the vowel best adapted to the idea has prevailed instead -of the one found in the old nom. forms _cwucu_, _cucu_ from _cwicu_ -(inflected _cwicne_, _cwices_, etc.), while in the word _widu_, _wudu_, -which is phonetically analogous, there was no such inducement, and -the vowel [u] has been preserved: _wood_. The same prevalence of the -symbolic _i_ is noticed in the Dan. adj. _kvik_, MLG. _quik_, while -the same word as subst. has become Dan. _kvæg_, MLG. _quek_, where -there was no symbolism at work, as it has come to mean ‘cattle.’ I -even see symbolism in the preservation of the _k_ in the Dan. adj. (as -against the fricative in _kvæg_), because the notion of ‘quick’ is best -expressed by the short [i], interrupted by a stop; and may not the -same force have been at work in this adjective at an earlier period? -The second _k_ in OE. _cwicu_, ON. _kvikr_ as against Goth. _qius_, -Lat. _vivus_, has not been sufficiently explained. An [i], symbolic of -smallness, has been introduced in some comparatively recent E. words: -_tip_ from _top_, _trip_ ‘small flock’ from _troop_, _sip_ ‘drink in -small quantities’ from _sup_, _sop_. - -Through changes in meaning, too, some words have become symbolically -more expressive than they were formerly; thus the agreement between -sound and sense is of late growth in _miniature_, which now, on account -of the _i_, has come to mean ‘a small picture,’ while at first it meant -‘image painted with minium or vermilion,’ and in _pittance_, now ‘a -scanty allowance,’ formerly any pious donation, whether great or small. -Cf. what has been said above of _sullen_, _moody_, _catch_. - - -XX.--§ 11. Importance of Suggestiveness. - -The suggestiveness of some words as felt by present-day speakers is -a fact that must be taken into account if we are to understand the -realities of language. In some cases it may have existed from the very -first: these words sprang thus into being because that shape at once -expressed the idea the speaker wished to communicate. In other cases -the suggestive element is not original: these words arose in the same -way as innumerable others whose sound has never carried any suggestion. -But if the sound of a word of this class was, or came to be, in some -way suggestive of its signification--say, if a word containing the -vowel [i] in a prominent place meant ‘small’ or something small--then -the sound exerted a strong influence in gaining popular favour to the -word; it was an inducement to people to choose and to prefer that -particular word and to cease to use words for the same notion that were -not thus favoured. Sound symbolism, we may say, makes some words more -fit to survive and gives them considerable help in their struggle for -existence. If we want to denote a little child by a word for some small -animal, we take some word like _kid_, _chick_, _kitten_, rather than -_bat_ or _pug_ or _slug_, though these may in themselves be smaller -than the animal chosen. - -It is quite true that Fr. _rouler_, our _roll_, is derived from Lat. -_rota_ ‘wheel’ + a diminutive ending _-ul-_, but the word would never -have gained its immense popularity, extending as it does through -English, Dutch, German and the Scandinavian languages, if the sound -had not been eminently suggestive of the sense, so suggestive that it -seems to us now _the_ natural expression for that idea, and we have -difficulty in realizing that the word has not existed from the very -dawn of speech. Or let me take another example, in which the connexion -between sound and sense is even more ‘fortuitous.’ About a hundred -years ago a member of Congress, Felix Walker, from Buncombe County, -North Carolina, made a long and tedious speech. “Many members left the -hall. Very naïvely he told those who remained that they might go too; -he should speak for some time, but ‘he was only talking for Buncombe,’ -to please his constituents.” Now _buncombe_ (_buncome_, _bunkum_) has -become a widely used word, not only in the States, but all over the -English-speaking world, for political speaking or action not resting -on conviction, but on the desire of gaining the favour of electors, or -for any kind of empty ‘clap-trap’ oratory; but does anybody suppose -that the name of Mr. Walker’s constituency would have been thus used if -he had happened to hail from Annapolis or Philadelphia, or some other -place with a name incapable of tickling the popular fancy in the same -way as _Buncombe_ does? (Cf. above, p. 401 on the suggestiveness of the -short _u_.) In a similar way _hullaballoo_ seems to have originated -from the Irish village _Ballyhooly_ (see P. W. Joyce, _English as we -speak it in Ireland_) and to have become popular on account of its -suggestive sound. - -In loan-words we can often see that they have been adopted less on -account of any cultural necessity (see above, p. 209) than because -their sound was in some way or other suggestive. Thus the Algonkin -(Natick) word for ‘chief,’ _mugquomp_, is used in the United States -in the form of _mugwump_ for a ‘great man’ or ‘boss,’ and especially, -in political life, for a man independent of parties and thinking -himself superior to parties. Now, no one would have thought of going -to an Indian language to express such a notion, had not an Indian word -presented itself which from its uncouth sound lent itself to purposes -of ridicule. Among other words whose adoption has been favoured by -their sounds I may mention _jungle_ (from Hindi _jangal_, associated -more or less closely with _jumble_, _tumble_, _bundle_, _bungle_); -_bobbery_, in slang ‘noise, squabble,’ “the Anglo-Indian colloquial -representation of a common exclamation of Hindus when in surprise or -grief--_Bap-rē!_ or _Bap-rē Bap_ ‘O Father!’” (Hobson-Jobson); _amuck_; -and U.S. _bunco_ ‘swindling game, to swindle,’ from It. _banco_. - - -XX.--§ 12. Ancient and Modern Times. - -It will be seen that our conception of echoism and related phenomena -does not carry us back to an imaginary primitive period: these forces -are vital in languages as we observe them day by day. Linguistic -writers, however, often assume that sound symbolism, if existing at -all, must date back to the earliest times, and therefore can have -no reality nowadays. Thus Benfey (Gesch 288) turns upon de Brosse, -who had found rudeness in Fr. _rude_ and gentleness in Fr. _doux_, -and says: “As if the sounds of such words, which are distant by an -infinite length of time from the time when language originated, were -able to contribute ever so little to explain the original designation -of things.” (But Benfey is right in saying that the impression made -by those two French words may be imaginary; as examples they are not -particularly well chosen.) Sütterlin (WW 14) says: “It is bold to -search for such correspondence as still existing in detail in the -language of our own days. For words like _liebe_, _süss_ on the one -hand, and _zorn_, _hass_, _hart_ on the other, which are often alleged -by dilettanti, prove nothing to the scholar, because their form is -young and must have had totally different sounds in the period when -language was created.” - -Similarly de Saussure (LG 104) gives as one of the main principles of -our science that the tie between sound and sense is arbitrary or rather -motiveless (immotivé), and to those who would object that onomatopoetic -words are not arbitrary he says that “they are never organic elements -of a linguistic system. Besides, they are much less numerous than is -generally supposed. Such words as Fr. _fouet_ and _glas_ may strike -some ears with a suggestive ring;[106] but they have not had that -character from the start, as is sufficiently proved if we go back to -their Latin forms (_fouet_ derived from _fagus_ ‘beech,’ _glas_ = -_classicum_); the quality possessed by, or rather attributed to, their -actual sounds is a fortuitous result of phonetic development.” - -Here we see one of the characteristics of modern linguistic science: -it is so preoccupied with etymology, with the origin of words, that -it pays much more attention to what words have come from than to what -they have come to be. If a word has not always been suggestive on -account of its sound, then its actual suggestiveness is left out of -account and may even be declared to be merely fanciful. I hope that -this chapter contains throughout what is psychologically a more true -and linguistically a more fruitful view. - -Though some echo words may be very old, the great majority are not; -at any rate, in looking up the earliest ascertained date of a goodly -number of such words in the NED, I have been struck by the fact of so -many of them being quite recent, not more than a few centuries old, -and some not even that. To some extent their recent appearance in -writing may be ascribed to the general character of the old literature -as contrasted with our modern literature, which is less conventional, -freer in many ways, more true to life with its infinite variety and -more true, too, to the spoken language of every day. But that cannot -account for everything, and there is every probability that this class -of words is really more frequent in the spoken language of recent times -than it was formerly, because people speak in a more vivid and fresh -fashion than their ancestors of hundreds or thousands of years ago. -The time of psychological reaction is shorter than it used to be, life -moves at a more rapid rate, and people are less tied down to tradition -than in former ages, consequently they are more apt to create and to -adopt new words of this particular type, which are felt at once to -be significant and expressive. In all languages the creation and use -of echoic and symbolic words seems to have been on the increase in -historical times. If to this we add the selective process through which -words which have only secondarily acquired symbolical value survive -at the cost of less adequate expressions, or less adequate forms of -the same words, and subsequently give rise to a host of derivatives, -then we may say that languages in course of time grow richer and -richer in symbolic words. So far from believing in a golden primitive -age, in which everything in language was expressive and immediately -intelligible on account of the significative value of each group of -sounds, we arrive rather, here as in other domains, at the conception -of a slow progressive development towards a greater number of easy and -adequate expressions--expressions in which sound and sense are united -in a marriage-union closer than was ever known to our remote ancestors. - -FOOTNOTES: - -[100] “Inner and essential connexion between idea and word ... there is -none, in any language upon earth,” says Whitney L 32. - -[101] I have learnt very little from the discussion which followed -Wundt’s remarks on the subject (S 1. 312-347); see Delbrück Grfr 78 -ff., Sütterlin WSG 29 ff., Hilmer Sch 10 ff. - -[102] Schuchardt, KS 5. 12, _Zs. f. rom. Phil._ 33. 458, Churchill -B 53, Sandfeld-Jensen, _Nationalfølelsen_ 14, Lentzner, _Col._ 87, -Simonyi US 157, _The Outlook_, January 1910, _New Quarterly Mag._, July -1879. - -[103] _F_, for instance, in _fop_, _foozy_, _fogy_, _fogram_ (old), all -of them more or less variants of _fool_. - -[104] The preceding paragraphs on the symbolic value of _i_ are an -abstract of a paper which will be printed in _Philologica_, vol. i. - -[105] Benfey Gesch 791, Misteli 539, Wundt S 1. 331 (but his examples -from out-of-the-way languages must be used with caution, and curiously -enough he thinks that the phenomenon is limited to primitive languages -and is not found in Semitic or Aryan languages), GRM 1. 638, Simonyi US -255, Meinhof, Ham 20. - -[106] I must confess that I find nothing symbolical in _glas_ and very -little in _fouet_ (though the verb _fouetter_ has something of the -force of E. _whip_). On the whole, much of what people ‘hear’ in a -word appears to me fanciful and apt to discredit reasonable attempts -at gaining an insight into the essence of sound symbolism; thus E. -Lerch’s ridiculous remark on G. _loch_ in GRM 7. 101: “_loch_ malt die -bewegung, die der anblick eines solchen im beschauer auslöst, durch -eine entsprechende bewegung der sprachwerkzeuge, beginnend mit der -liquida zur bezeichnung der rundung und endend mit dem gutturalen _ch_ -tief hinten in der gurgel.” - - - - -CHAPTER XXI - -THE ORIGIN OF SPEECH - - § 1. Introduction. § 2. Former Theories. § 3. Method. § 4. Sounds. § - 5. Grammar. § 6. Units. § 7. Irregularities. § 8. Savage Tribes. § 9. - Law of Development. § 10. Vocabulary. § 11. Poetry and Prose. § 12. - Emotional Songs. § 13. Primitive Singing. § 14. Approach to Language. - § 15. The Earliest Sentences. § 16. Conclusion. - - -XXI.--§ 1. Introduction. - -Much of what is contained in the last chapters is preparatory to the -theme which is to occupy us in this chapter, the ultimate origin of -human speech. We have already seen the feeling with which this subject -has often been regarded by eminent linguists, the feeling which led to -an absolute taboo of the question in the French Société de linguistique -(p. 96). One may here quote Whitney: “No theme in linguistic science -is more often and more voluminously treated than this, and by scholars -of every grade and tendency; nor any, it may be added, with less -profitable result in proportion to the labour expended; the greater -part of what is said and written upon it is mere windy talk, the -assertion of subjective views which commend themselves to no mind save -the one that produces them, and which are apt to be offered with a -confidence, and defended with a tenacity, that are in inverse ratio to -their acceptableness. This has given the whole question a bad repute -among sober-minded philologists” (OLS 1. 279). - -Nevertheless, linguistic science cannot refrain for ever from asking -about the whence (and about the whither) of linguistic evolution. And -here we must first of all realize that man is not the only animal that -has a ‘language,’ though at present we know very little about the real -nature and expressiveness of the languages of birds and mammals or of -the signalling system of ants, etc. The speech of some animals may -be more like our language than most people are willing to admit--it -may also in some respects be even more perfect than human language -precisely because it is unlike it and has developed along lines about -which we can know nothing; but it is of little avail to speculate on -these matters. What is certain is that no race of mankind is without -a language which in everything essential is identical in character -with our own, and that there are a certain number of circumstances -which have been of signal importance in assisting mankind in developing -language (cf. Gabelentz Spr 294 ff.). - -First of all, man has an upright gait; this gives him two limbs more -than the dog has, for instance: he can carry things and yet jabber on; -he is not reduced to defending himself by biting, but can use his mouth -for other purposes. Feeding also takes less time in his case than in -that of the cow, who has little time for anything else than chewing -and a _moo_ now and then. The sexual life of man is not restricted to -one particular time of the year, the two sexes remain together the -whole year round, and thus sociability is promoted; the helplessness -of babies works in the same direction through necessitating a more -continuous family life, in which there is also time enough for all -kinds of sports, including play with the vocal organs. Thus conditions -have been generally favourable for the development of singing and -talking, but the problem is, how could sounds and ideas come to be -connected as they are in language? - -What method or methods have we for the solution of this question? -With very few exceptions those who have written about our subject -have conjured up in their imagination a primitive era, and then asked -themselves: How would it be possible for men or manlike beings, -hitherto unfurnished with speech, to acquire speech as a means of -communication of thought? Not only is this method followed, so to -speak, instinctively by investigators, but we are even positively told -(by Marty) that it is the only method possible. In direct opposition -to this assertion, I think that it is chiefly and principally due to -this method and to this way of putting the question that so little has -yet been done to solve it. If we are to have any hope of success in our -investigation we must try new methods and new ways--and fortunately -there _are_ ways which lead us to a point from which we may expect to -see the world of primitive language revealed to us in a new light. But -let us first cast a rapid glance at those theories which have been -advanced by followers of the speculative or _a priori_ method. - - -XXI.--§ 2. Former Theories. - -One theory is that primitive words were imitative of sounds: man copied -the barking of dogs and thereby obtained a natural word with the -meaning of ‘dog’ or ‘bark.’ To this theory, nicknamed the _bow-wow_ -theory, Renan objects that it seems rather absurd to set up this -chronological sequence: first the lower animals are original enough -to cry and roar; and then comes man, making a language for himself -by imitating his inferiors. But surely man would imitate not only the -cries of inferior animals, but also those of his fellow-men, and the -salient point of the theory is this: sounds which in one creature -were produced without any meaning, but which were characteristic of -that creature, could by man be used to designate the creature itself -(or the movement or action productive of the sound). In this way an -originally unmeaning sound could in the mouth of an imitator and in -the mind of someone hearing that imitation acquire a real meaning. -In the chapter on Sound Symbolism I have tried to show how from the -rudest and most direct imitations of this kind we may arrive through -many gradations at some of the subtlest effects of human speech, and -how imitation, in the widest sense we can give to this word--a wider -sense than most advocates of the theory seem able to imagine--is so far -from belonging exclusively to a primitive age that it is not extinct -even yet. There is not much of value in Max Müller’s remark that “the -onomatopœic theory goes very smoothly as long as it deals with cackling -hens and quacking ducks; but round that poultry-yard there is a high -wall, and we soon find that it is behind that wall that language really -begins” (_Life_ 2. 97), or in his other remark that “words of this -kind (_cuckoo_) are, like artificial flowers, without a root. They are -sterile, and unfit to express anything beyond the one object which they -imitate” (ib. 1. 410). But _cuckoo_ may become _cuckold_ (Fr. _cocu_), -and from _cock_ are derived the names Müller himself mentions, Fr. -_coquet_, _coquetterie_, _cocart_, _cocarde_, _coquelicot_.... Echoic -words may be just as fertile as any other part of the vocabulary. - -Another theory is the interjectional, nicknamed the _pooh-pooh_, -theory: language is derived from instinctive ejaculations called forth -by pain or other intense sensations or feelings. The adherents of this -theory generally take these interjections for granted, without asking -about the way in which they have come into existence. Darwin, however, -in _The Expression of the Emotions_, gives purely physiological reasons -for some interjections, as when the feeling of contempt or disgust is -accompanied by a tendency “to blow out of the mouth or nostrils, and -this produces sounds like _pooh_ or _pish_.” Again, “when anyone is -startled or suddenly astonished, there is an instantaneous tendency, -likewise from an intelligible cause, namely, to be ready for prolonged -exertion, to open the mouth widely, so as to draw a deep and rapid -inspiration. When the next full expiration follows, the mouth is -slightly closed, and the lips, from causes hereafter to be discussed, -are somewhat protruded; and this form of the mouth, if the voice be -at all exerted, produces ... the sound of the vowel _o_. Certainly a -deep sound of a prolonged _Oh!_ may be heard from a whole crowd of -people immediately after witnessing any astonishing spectacle. If, -together with surprise, pain be felt, there is a tendency to contract -all the muscles of the body, including those of the face, and the lips -will then be drawn back; and this will perhaps account for the sound -becoming higher and assuming the character of _Ah!_ or _Ach!_” - -To the ordinary interjectional theory it may be objected that the -usual interjections are abrupt expressions for sudden sensations -and emotions; they are therefore isolated in relation to the speech -material used in the rest of the language. “Between interjection -and word there is a chasm wide enough to allow us to say that the -interjection is the negation of language, for interjections are -employed only when one either cannot or will not speak” (Benfey Gesch -295). This ‘chasm’ is also shown phonetically by the fact that the most -spontaneous interjections often contain sounds which are not used in -language proper, voiceless vowels, inspiratory sounds, clicks, etc., -whence the impossibility properly to represent them by means of our -ordinary alphabet: the spellings _pooh_, _pish_, _whew_, _tut_ are very -poor renderings indeed of the natural sounds. On the other hand, many -interjections are now more or less conventionalized and are learnt -like any other words, consequently with a different form in different -languages: in pain a German and a Seelander will exclaim _au_, a -Jutlander _aus_, a Frenchman _ahi_ and an Englishman _oh_, or perhaps -_ow_. Kipling writes in one of his stories: “That man is no Afghan, for -they weep ‘Ai! Ai!’ Nor is he of Hindustan, for they weep ‘Oh! Ho!’ He -weeps after the fashion of the white men, who say, ‘Ow! Ow!’” - -A closely related theory is the nativistic, nicknamed the _ding-dong_, -theory, according to which there is a mystic harmony between sound and -sense: “There is a law which runs through nearly the whole of nature, -that everything which is struck rings. Each substance has its peculiar -ring.” Language is the result of an instinct, a “faculty peculiar to -man in his primitive state, by which every impression from without -received its vocal expression from within”--a faculty which “became -extinct when its object was fulfilled.” This theory, which Max Müller -propounded and afterwards wisely abandoned, is mentioned here for the -curiosity of the matter only. - -Noiré started a fourth theory, nicknamed the _yo-he-ho_: under any -strong muscular effort it is a relief to the system to let breath -come out strongly and repeatedly, and by that process to let the -vocal chords vibrate in different ways; when primitive acts were -performed in common, they would, therefore, naturally be accompanied -with some sounds which would come to be associated with the idea of -the act performed and stand as a name for it; the first words would -accordingly mean something like ‘heave’ or ‘haul.’ - -Now, these theories, here imperfectly reproduced each in a few lines, -are mutually antagonistic: thus Noiré thinks it possible to explain the -origin of speech without sound imitation. And yet what should prevent -our combining these several theories and using them concurrently? It -would seem to matter very little whether the first word uttered by man -was _bow-wow_ or _pooh-pooh_, for the fact remains that he said both -one and the other. Each of the three chief theories enables one to -explain _parts of language_, but still only parts, and not even the -most important parts--the main body of language seems hardly to be -touched by any of them. Again, with the exception of Noiré’s theory, -they are too individualistic and take too little account of language as -a means of human intercourse. Moreover, they all tacitly assume that up -to the creation of language man had remained mute or silent; but this -is most improbable from a physiological point of view. As a rule we do -not find an organ already perfected on the first occasion of its use; -it is only by use that an organ is developed. - - -XXI.--§ 3. Method. - -So much for the results of the first method of approaching the -question of the origin of speech, that of trying to picture to oneself -a speechless mankind and speculating on the way in which language -could then have originated. We shall now, as hinted above (p. 413), -indicate the ways in which it is possible to supplement, and even in -some measure to supplant, this speculative or deductive method by -means of inductive reasonings. These can be based on three fields of -investigation, namely: - - (1) The language of children; - (2) The language of primitive races, and - (3) The history of language. - -Of these, the third is the most fruitful source of information. - -First, as to the language of children. Some biologists maintain that -the development of the individual follows on the whole the same course -as that of the race; the embryo, before it arrives at full maturity, -will have passed through the same stages of development which in -countless generations have led the whole species to its present level. -It has, therefore, occurred to many that the acquisition by mankind at -large of the faculty of speech may be mirrored to us in the process -by which any child learns to communicate its thoughts by means of its -vocal organs. Accordingly, children’s language has often been invoked -to furnish illustrations and parallels of the process gone through -in the formation of primitive language. But many writers have been -guilty of an erroneous inference in applying this principle, inasmuch -as they have taken all their examples from a child’s acquisition of an -already existing language. The fallacy will be evident if we suppose -for a moment the case of a man endeavouring to arrive at the evolution -of music from the manner in which a child is nowadays taught to play -on the piano. Manifestly, the modern learner is in quite a different -position to primitive man, and has quite a different task set him: he -has an instrument ready to hand, and melodies already composed for -him, and finally a teacher who understands how to draw these tunes -forth from the instrument. It is the same thing with language: the task -of the child is to learn an existing language, that is, to connect -certain sounds heard on the lips of others with the same ideas that the -speakers associate with them, but not in the least to frame anything -new. No; if we are seeking some parallel to the primitive acquisition -of language, we must look elsewhere and turn to baby language as it -is spoken in the first year of life, before the child has begun to -‘notice’ and to make out what use is made of language by grown-up -people. Here, in the child’s first purposeless murmuring, crowing -and babbling, we have real nature sounds; here we may expect to find -some clue to the infancy of the language of the race. And, again, we -must not neglect the way children have of creating new words never -heard before, and often of attaching a sense to originally meaningless -conglomerations of sound. - -As for the languages of contemporary savages, we may in some instances -take them as typical of more primitive languages than those of -civilized nations, and therefore as illustrating a linguistic stage -that is nearer to that in which speech originated. Still, inferences -from such languages should be used with great caution, for it should -never be forgotten that even the most backward race has many centuries -of linguistic evolution behind it, and that the conditions therefore -may, or must, be very different from those of primeval man. The -so-called primitive languages will therefore in the following sections -be only invoked to corroborate conclusions at which it is possible to -arrive from other data. - -The third and most fruitful source from which to gather information of -value for our investigation is the history of language as it has been -considered in previous chapters of this work. While the propounders -of the theories of the origin of speech mentioned above made straight -for the front of the lion’s den, we are like the fox in the fable, who -noticed that all the traces led into the den and not a single one came -out; we will therefore try and steal into the den from behind. They -thought it logically correct, nay necessary, to begin at the beginning; -let us, for variety’s sake, begin with languages accessible at the -present day, and let us attempt from that starting-point step by step -to trace the backward path. Perhaps in this way we may reach the very -first beginnings of speech. - -The method I recommend, and which I think I am the first to employ -consistently, is to trace our modern twentieth-century languages as far -back in time as history and our materials will allow us; and then, from -this comparison of present English with Old English, of Danish with -Old Norse, and of both with ‘Common Gothonic,’ of French and Italian -with Latin, of modern Indian dialects with Sanskrit, etc., to deduce -definite laws for the development of languages in general, and to try -and find a system of lines which can be lengthened backwards beyond -the reach of history. If we should succeed in discovering certain -qualities to be generally typical of the earlier as opposed to the -later stages of languages, we shall be justified in concluding that -the same qualities obtained in a still higher degree in the earliest -times of all; if we are able within the historical era to demonstrate a -definite direction of linguistic evolution, we must be allowed to infer -that the direction was the same even in those primeval periods for -which we have no documents to guide us. But if the change witnessed in -the evolution of modern speech out of older forms of speech is thus on -a larger scale projected back into the childhood of mankind, and if by -this process we arrive finally at uttered sounds of such a description -that they can no longer be called a real language, but something -antecedent to language--why, then the problem will have been solved; -for transformation is something we can understand, while a creation out -of nothing can never be comprehended by human understanding. - -This, then, will be the object of the following rapid sketch: to search -the several departments of the science of language for general laws -of evolution--most of them have already been discussed at some length -in the preceding chapters--then to magnify the changes observed, and -thus to form a picture of the outer and inner structure of some sort of -speech more primitive than the most primitive language accessible to -direct observation. - - -XXI.--§ 4. Sounds. - -First, as regards the purely phonetic side of language, we observe -everywhere the tendency to make pronunciation more easy, so as to -lessen the muscular effort; difficult combinations of sounds are -discarded, those only being retained which are pronounced with ease -(see Ch. XIV § 6 ff.). Modern research has shown that the Proto-Aryan -sound-system was much more complicated than was imagined in the -reconstructions of the middle of the nineteenth century. In most -languages now only such sounds are used as are produced by expiration, -while inbreathed sounds and clicks or suction-stops are not found in -connected speech. In civilized languages we meet with such sounds only -in interjections, as when an inbreathed voiceless _l_ (generally with -rhythmic variations of strength and corresponding small movements of -the tongue) is used to express delight in eating and drinking, or when -the click inadequately spelt _tut_ is used to express impatience. -In some very primitive South African languages, on the other hand, -clicks are found as integral parts of words; and Bleek has rendered -it probable that in former stages of these languages they were in -more extensive use than now. We may perhaps draw the conclusion that -primitive languages in general were rich in all kinds of difficult -sounds. - -The following point is of more far-reaching consequence. In some -languages we find a gradual disappearance of tone or pitch accent; this -has been the case in Danish, whereas Norwegian and Swedish have kept -the old tones; so also in Russian as compared with Serbo-Croatian. -In the works of old Indian, Greek and Latin grammarians we have -express statements to the effect that pitch accent played a prominent -part in those languages, and that the intervals used must have been -comparatively greater than is usual in our modern languages. In modern -Greek and in the Romanic languages the tone element has been obscured, -and now ‘stress’ is heard on the syllable where the ancients noted only -a high or a low tone. About the languages spoken nowadays by savage -tribes we have generally very little information, as most of those who -have made a first-hand study of such languages have not been trained -to observe and to describe these delicate points; still, there is of -late years an increasing number of observations of tone accents, for -instance in African languages, which may justify us in thinking that -tone plays an important part in many primitive languages.[107] - -So much for word tones; now for the sentence melody. It is a well-known -fact that the modulation of sentences is strongly influenced by the -effect of intense emotions in causing stronger and more rapid raisings -and sinkings of the tone. “All passionate language does of itself -become musical--with a finer music than the mere accent; the speech -of a man even in zealous anger becomes a chant, a song” (Carlyle). -“The sounds of common conversation have but little resonance; those -of strong feeling have much more. Under rising ill-temper the voice -acquires a metallic ring.... Grief, unburdening itself, uses tones -approaching in _timbre_ to those of chanting; and in his most pathetic -passages an eloquent speaker similarly falls into tones more vibratory -than those common to him.... While calm speech is comparatively -monotonous, emotion makes use of fifths, octaves, and even wider -intervals” (H. Spencer). - -Now, it is a consequence of advancing civilization that passion, -or, at least, the expression of passion, is moderated, and we must -therefore conclude that the speech of uncivilized and primitive men -was more passionately agitated than ours, more like music or song. -This conclusion is borne out by what we hear about the speech of many -savages in our own days. European travellers very often record their -impression of the speech of different tribes in expressions like -these: “pronouncing whatever they spoke in a very singing manner,” -“the singing tone of voice, in common conversation, was frequent,” -“the speech is very much modulated and resembles singing,” “highly -artificial and musical,” etc. - -These facts and considerations all point to the conclusion that there -once was a time when all speech was song, or rather when these two -actions were not yet differentiated; but perhaps this inference cannot -be established inductively at the present stage of linguistic science -with the same amount of certainty as the statements I am now going to -make as to the nature of primitive speech. - -As we have seen above (Ch. XVII § 7), a great many of the changes -going on regularly from century to century, as well as some of the -sudden changes which take place now and then in the history of each -language, result in the shortening of words. This is seen everywhere -and at all times, and in consequence of this universal tendency we -find that the ancient languages of our family, Sanskrit, Zend, etc., -abound in very long words; the further back we go, the greater the -number of _sesquipedalia_. We have seen also how the current theory, -according to which every language started with monosyllabic roots, -fails at every point to account for actual facts and breaks down before -the established truths of linguistic history. Just as the history -of religion does not pass from the belief in one god to the belief -in many gods, but inversely from polytheism towards monotheism, so -language proceeds from original polysyllabism towards monosyllabism: -if the development of language took the same course in prehistoric -as in historic times, we see, by projecting the teaching of history -on a larger scale back into the darkest ages, that early words must -have been to present ones what the plesiosaurus and gigantosaurus -are to present-day reptiles. The outcome of this phonetic section -is, therefore, that we must imagine primitive language as consisting -(chiefly at least) of very long words, full of difficult sounds, and -sung rather than spoken. - - -XXI.--§ 5. Grammar. - -Can anything be stated about the grammar of primitive languages? Yes, I -think so, if we continue backwards into the past the lines of evolution -resulting from the investigations of previous chapters of this volume. -Ancient languages have more forms than modern ones; forms originally -kept distinct are in course of time confused, either phonetically or -analogically, alike in substantives, adjectives and verbs. - -A characteristic feature of the structure of languages in their early -stages is that each form of a word (whether verb or noun) contains -in itself several minor modifications which, in the later stages, -are expressed separately (if at all), that is, by means of auxiliary -verbs or prepositions. Such a word as Latin _cantavisset_ unites in -one inseparable whole the equivalents of six ideas: (1) ‘sing,’ (2) -pluperfect, (3) that indefinite modification of the verbal idea which -we term subjunctive, (4) active, (5) third person, and (6) singular. -The tendency of later stages is towards expressing such modifications -analytically; but if we accept the terms ‘synthesis’ and ‘analysis’ -for ancient and recent stages, we must first realize that there exist -many gradations of both: in no single language do we find either -synthesis or analysis carried out with absolute purity and consistency. -Everywhere we find a more or less. Latin is synthetic in comparison -with French, French analytic in comparison with Latin; but if we were -able to see the direct ancestor of Latin, say two thousand years before -the earliest inscriptions, we should no doubt find a language so -synthetic that in comparison with it Cicero’s would have to be termed -highly analytic. - -Secondly, we must not from the term ‘synthesis,’ which etymologically -means ‘composition’ or ‘putting together,’ draw the conclusion that -synthetic forms, such as we find, for instance, in Latin, consist -of originally independent elements put together and thus in their -turn presuppose a previous stage of analysis. Whoever does not share -the usual opinion that all flexional forms have originated through -coalescence of separate words, but sees as we have seen (in Ch. XIX) -also the reverse process of inseparable portions of words gaining -greater and greater independence, will perhaps do well to look out -for a better and less ambiguous word than _synthesis_ to describe the -character of primitive speech. What in the later stages of languages -is analyzed or dissolved, in the earlier stages was unanalyzable or -indissoluble; ‘entangled’ or ‘complicated’ would therefore be better -renderings of our impression of the first state of things. - - -XXI.--§ 6. Units. - -But are the old forms really less dissoluble than their modern -equivalents? This is repeatedly denied even by recent writers, on whom -my words in _Progress_, p. 117, cannot have made much impression, if -they have read them at all; and it will therefore be necessary to take -up this cardinal point. Let me begin with quoting what others have -said. “Historically considered, the Latin _amat_ is really two words, -as much as its English representative, the final _t_ being originally -a pronoun signifying ‘he,’ ‘she’ or ‘it,’ and it is only reasons of -practical convenience that prevent us from writing _am at_ or _ama t_ -as two and _heloves_ as one word.... The really essential difference -between _amat_ and _he loves_ is that in the former the pronominal -element is expressed by a suffix, in the latter by a prefix” (Sweet PS -274, 1899). “It is purely accidental that the Latin form is not written -_am-av-it_. To the unsophisticated Frenchman _il a aimé_ is neither -less nor more one unit than _amavit_ to a Roman.... When the locution -_il a aimé_ sprang up, each element of it was still to some extent felt -separately; but after it had become a fixed formula the elements were -fused together into one whole. As a matter of fact, uneducated French -people have not the least idea whether it is one or three words they -speak” (Sütterlin WGS 11, 1902). “In some modern languages the personal -pronoun is, just as in archaic Greek, beginning to be amalgamated -with verbs so as to become a mere termination (_sic_: _désinence_; -prefix must be what is meant): Fr. _j’don’_, _tu-don’_, _il-don’_ (je -donne, tu donnes, il donne) and E. _i-giv’_, _we giv’_, _you-giv’_, -_they-giv’_, correspond exactly to Gr. _dido-mi_, _dido-si_, _dido-ti_, -only that the personal particle is in a different place” (Dauzat V 155, -1910). “If French were a savage language not yet reduced to writing, -a travelling linguist, hearing the present tense of the verb _aimer_ -pronounced by the natives, would transcribe it in the following way: -_jèm_, _tu èm_, _ilèm_, _nouzémon_, _vouzémé_, _ilzèm_. He would be -struck particularly with the agglutination of the pronominal subject -and the verb, and would never feel tempted to draw up a paradigm -without pronouns: _aime_, _aimes_, _aime_, _aimons_, etc., in which -traditional spelling makes us believe.... He would even, through a -comparison of _ilèm_ and _ilzèm_, be led to establish a tendency to -incorporation, as the only sign of the plural is a _z_ infixed in the -verbal complex” (Bally LV 43, 1913). - -In these utterances two questions are really mixed together, that of -the origin of Aryan flexional forms and that of the actual status of -some forms in various languages. As to the former question, we have -seen (p. 383) how very uncertain it is that _amat_ and _didosi_, etc., -contain pronouns. As to the latter question, it is quite true that -we should not let the usual spelling be decisive when it is asked -whether we have one or two or three words; but all these writers -strangely overlook the really important criteria which we possess in -this matter. Bally’s traveller could only have arrived at his result -by listening to grammar lessons in which the three persons of the verb -were rattled off one after the other, for if he had taken his forms -from actual conversation he would have come across numerous instances -in which the forms occurred without pronouns, first in the imperative, -_aime_, _aimons_, _aimez_, then in collocations like _celui qui aime_, -_ceux qui aiment_, in which there is no infix to denote the plural; -in _le mari aime_, _les maris aiment_, and innumerable similar groups -there is neither pronoun nor infix. If he were at first inclined to -take _ilaaimé_ as one word, he would on further acquaintance with the -language discover that the elements were often separated: _il n’a pas -aimé_, _il nous a toujours aimés_, etc. Similarly with the English -forms adduced: _I never give_, _you always give_. This is the crucial -point: the French and English combinations are two (three) words -because the elements are not always placed together; Lat. _amat_, -_amavit_, are each of them only one word because they can never be -divided, and in the same way we never find anything placed between _am_ -and _o_ in the first person, _amo_. These forms are as inseparable as -E. _loves_, but E. _heloves_ is separable because both _he_ and _loves_ -can stand alone, and can also, in certain combinations, though now -rarely, be transposed: _loves he_. Some writers would compare French -combinations like _il te le disait_ with verbal forms in certain -Amerindian languages, in which subject and direct and indirect object -are alike ‘incorporated’ in a ‘polysynthetic’ verbal form; it is -quite true that these French pronominal forms can never be used by -themselves, but only in conjunction with a verb; still, the French -pronouns are more independent of each other than the elements of some -other more primitive languages. In the first place, this is shown by -the possibility of varying the pronunciation: _il te le disait_ may -be either [itlədizɛ] or [itəldizɛ] or even more solemnly [iltələdizɛ]; -secondly, by the regularity of these joined pronominal forms, for they -are always the same, whatever the verb may be; and lastly, by their -changing places in certain cases: _te le disait-il?_ _dis-le-lui_, etc. - -Nor can it be said that English forms like _he’s_ = _he is_ (or _he -has_), _I’d_ = _I had_ (or _I would_), _he’ll_ = _he will_ show a -tendency towards ‘entangling,’ for however closely together these -forms are generally pronounced, each of them must be said to consist -of two words, as is shown by the possibility of transposition (Is he -ill?) and of intercalation of other words (I never had); it is also -noteworthy that the same short forms of the verbs can be added to all -kinds of words (the water’ll be ..., the sea’d been calm). In the forms -_don’t_, _won’t_, _can’t_ there is something like amalgamation of the -verbal with the negative idea. Still, it is important to notice that -the amalgamation only takes place with a few verbs of the auxiliary -class. In saying ‘I don’t write’ the full verb is not touched by the -fusion, and is even allowed to be unchanged in cases where it would -have been inflected if no auxiliary had been used; compare _I write_, -_he writes_, _I wrote_ with the negative _I don’t write_, _he doesn’t -write_, _I didn’t write_. It will be seen, especially if we take into -account the colloquial or vulgar form for the third person, _he don’t -write_, that the general movement here as elsewhere is really rather -in the direction of ‘isolation’ than of fusion; for the verbal form -_write_ is stripped of all signs of person and tense, the person being -indicated separately (if at all), and the tense sign being joined to -the negation. So also in interrogative sentences; and if that tendency -which can be observed in Elizabethan English had prevailed by using the -combination _I do write_ in positive statements, even where no special -emphasis is intended, English verbs (except a few auxiliaries) would -have been entirely stripped of those elements which to most grammarians -constitute the very essence of a verb, namely, the marks of person, -number, tense and mood, _write_ being the universal form, besides the -quasi-nominal forms _writing_ and _written_. - -Now, it is often said that the history of language shows a sort of -gyration or movement in spirals, in which synthesis is followed -by analysis, this by a new synthesis (flexion), and this again by -analysis, and so forth. Latin _amabo_ (which according to the old -theory was once _ama_ + some auxiliary) has been succeeded by _amare -habeo_, which in its turn is fused into _amerò_, _aimerai_, and the -latter form is now to some extent giving way to _je vais aimer_. But -this pretended law of rotation is only arrived at by considering -a comparatively small number of phenomena, and not by viewing the -successive stages of the same language as wholes and drawing general -inferences as to their typically distinctive characters (cf. above, -p. 337). If for every two instances of new flexions springing up we -see ten older ones discarded in favour of analysis or isolation, are -we not entitled to the generalization that flexion or indissolubility -tends to give way to analysis? We should beware of being under the same -delusion as a man who, in walking over a mountainous country, thinks -that he goes down just as many and just as long hills as he goes up, -while on the contrary each ascent is higher than the preceding descent, -so that finally he finds himself unexpectedly many thousand feet above -the level from which he started. - -The direction of movement is towards flexionless languages (such as -Chinese, or to a certain extent Modern English) with freely combinable -elements; the starting-point was flexional languages (such as Latin or -Greek); at a still earlier stage we must suppose a language in which -a verbal form might indicate not only six things, like _cantavisset_, -but a still larger number, in which verbs were perhaps modified -according to the gender (or sex) of the subject, as they are in -Semitic languages, or according to the object, as in some Amerindian -languages, or according to whether a man, a woman, or a person who -commands respect is spoken to, as in Basque. But that amounts to the -same thing as saying that the border-line between word and sentence was -not so clearly defined as in more recent times; _cantavisset_ is really -nothing but a sentence-word, and the same holds good to a still greater -extent of the sound conglomerations of Eskimo and some other North -American languages. Primitive linguistic units must have been much more -complicated in point of meaning, as well as much longer in point of -sound, than those with which we are most familiar. - - -XXI.--§ 7. Irregularities. - -Another point of great importance is this: in early languages we find -a far greater number of irregularities, exceptions, anomalies, than in -modern ones. It is true that we not unfrequently see new irregularities -spring up, where the formations were formerly regular; but these -instances are very far from counterbalancing the opposite class, in -which words once irregularly inflected become regular, or are given up -in favour of regularly inflected words, or in which anomalies in syntax -are levelled. The tendency is more and more to denote the same thing -by the same means in every case, to extend the ending, or whatever -it is, that is used in a large class of words to express a certain -modification of the central idea, until it is used in all other words -as well. - -Comparative linguistics did not attain a scientific character till -the principle was established that the relationship of two languages -had to be determined by a thoroughgoing conformity in the most -necessary parts of language, namely (besides grammar proper) pronouns -and numerals and the most indispensable of nouns and verbs. But if -this domain of speech, by preserving religiously, as it were, the -old tradition, affords infallible criteria of the near or remote -relationship of different languages, may we not reasonably expect to -find in the same domain some clue to the oldest grammatical system -used by our ancestors? What sort of system, then, do we find there? -We see such a declension as _I_, _me_, _we_, _us_: the several -forms of the ‘paradigm’ do not at all resemble each other, as they -do in more recently developed declensions. We find masculines and -feminines, such as _father_, _mother_, _man_, _wife_, _bull_, _cow_; -while such methods of derivation as are seen in _count_, _countess_, -_he-bear_, _she-bear_, belong to a later time. We meet with degrees of -comparison like _good_, _better_, _ill_, _worse_, while regular forms -like _happy_, _happier_, _big_, _bigger_, prevail in all the younger -strata of languages. We meet with verbal flexion such as appears in -_am_, _is_, _was_, _been_, which forms a striking contrast to the -more modern method of adding a mere ending while leaving the body of -the word unchanged. In an interesting book, _Vom Suppletivwesen der -indogermanischen Sprachen_ (1899), H. Osthoff has collected a very -great number of examples from the old Aryan languages of different -stems supplementing each other, and has pointed out that this -phenomenon is characteristic of the most necessary ideas occurring -every moment in ordinary conversation: I take at random a few of -the best-known of his examples: Fr. _aller_, _je vais_, _j’irai_, -Lat. _fero_, _tuli_, Gr. _horaō_, _opsomai_, _eidon_, Lat. _bonus_, -_melior_, _optimus_. Osthoff fully agrees with me that we have here a -trait of primitive psychology: our remote ancestors were not able to -see and to express what was common to these ideas; their minds were -very unsystematic, and separated in their linguistic expressions things -which from a logical point of view are closely related: much of their -grammar, therefore, was really of a lexical character. - - -XXI.--§ 8. Savage Tribes. - -If now it is asked whether the conclusions we have thus arrived at are -borne out by a consideration of the languages of savage or primitive -races nowadays, the answer is that these cannot be lumped together; -there are among them many different types, even with regard to -grammatical structure. But the more these languages are studied and the -more accurately their structure is described, the more also students -perceive intricacies and anomalies in their grammar. Gabelentz (Spr -386) says that the casual observer has no idea how manifold and how -nicely circumscribed grammatical categories can be, even in the -seemingly crudest languages, for ordinary grammars tell us nothing -about that. P. W. Schmidt (_Die Stellung der Pygmäenvölker_, 1910, -129) says that whoever, from the low culture of the Andamanese, would -expect to find their language very simple and poor in expressions -would be strangely deceived, for its mechanism is highly complicated, -with many prefixes and suffixes, which often conceal the root itself. -Meinhof (MSA 136) mentions the multiplicity of plural formations -in African languages. Vilhelm Thomsen, in speaking of the Santhal -(Khervarian) language, says that its grammar is capable of expressing -a multiplicity of _nuances_ which in other languages must be expressed -by clumsy circumlocutions; the native speakers go beyond what is -necessary through requiring expressions for many subordinate notions, -the language having, so to speak, only one fine gold-balance, on which -everything, even the simplest and commonest things, must be weighed -by the adding-up of a whole series of minutiæ. Curr speaks about the -erroneous belief in the simplicity of Australian languages, which on -the contrary have a great number of conjugations, etc. The extreme -difficulty and complex structure of Eskimo and of many Amerindian -languages is so notorious that no words need be wasted on them here. -And the forms of the Basque verb are so manifold and intricate that -we understand how Larramendi, in his legitimate pride at having been -the first to reduce them to a system, called his grammar _El Imposible -Vencido_, ‘The Impossible Overcome.’ At Béarn they have the story that -the good God, wishing to punish the devil for the temptation of Eve, -sent him to the Pays Basque with the command that he should remain -there till he had mastered the language. At the end of seven years God -relented, finding the punishment too severe, and called the devil to -him. The devil had no sooner crossed the bridge of Castelondo than he -found he had forgotten all that he had so hardly learned. - -What is here said about the languages of wild tribes (and of the -Basques, who are not exactly savages, but whose language is generally -taken to have retained many primeval traits) is in exact keeping -with everything that recent study of primitive man has brought to -light: the life of the savage is regulated to the minutest details -through ceremonies and conventionalities to be observed on every and -any occasion; he is restricted in what he may eat and drink and when -and how; and all these, to our mind, irrational prescriptions and -innumerable prohibitions have to be observed with the most scrupulous, -nay religious, care: it is the same with all the meticulous rules of -his language. - - -XXI.--§ 9. Law of Development. - -So far, then, from subscribing to Whitney’s dictum that “the law of -simplicity of beginnings applies to language not less naturally and -necessarily than to other instrumentalities” (G 226), we are drawn -to the conclusion that primitive language had a superabundance of -irregularities and anomalies, in syntax and word-formation no less -than in accidence. It was capricious and fanciful, and displayed a -luxuriant growth of forms, entangled one with another like the trees in -a primeval forest. “Rien n’entre mieux dans les esprits grossiers que -les subtilités des langues” (Tarde, _Lois de l’imitation_ 285). Human -minds in the early times disported themselves in long and intricate -words as in the wildest and most wanton play. Nothing could be more -beside the mark than to suppose that grammatical and logical categories -were in primitive languages generally in harmony (as is supposed, -e.g., by Sweet, _New Engl. Grammar_ § 543): primitive speech cannot -have been distinguished for logical consistency; nor, so far as we can -judge, was it simple and facile: it is much more likely to have been -extremely clumsy and unwieldy. Renan rightly reminds us of Turgot’s -wise saying: “Des hommes grossiers ne font rien de simple. Il faut des -hommes perfectionnés pour y arriver.” - -We have seen in earlier chapters that the old theory of the three -stages through which human language was supposed always to proceed, -isolation, agglutination and flexion, was built up on insufficient -materials; but while we feel tempted totally to reverse this system, we -must be on our guard against establishing too rigid and too absolute a -system ourselves. It would not do simply to reverse the order and say -that flexion is the oldest stage, from which language tends through -an agglutinative stage towards complete isolation, for flexion, -agglutination and isolation do not include all possible structural -types of speech. The possibilities of development are so manifold, -and there are such innumerable ways of arriving at more or less -adequate expressions for human thought, that it is next to impossible -to compare languages of different families. Even, therefore, if it is -probable that English, Finnish and Chinese are all simplifications -of more complex languages, we cannot say that Chinese, for instance, -at one time resembled English in structure and at some other time -Finnish. English was once a flexional language, and is still so in some -respects, while in others it is agglutinative, and in others again -isolating, or nearly so. But we may perhaps give the following formula -of what is our total impression of the whole preceding inquiry: - -THE EVOLUTION OF LANGUAGE SHOWS A PROGRESSIVE TENDENCY FROM INSEPARABLE -IRREGULAR CONGLOMERATIONS TO FREELY AND REGULARLY COMBINABLE SHORT -ELEMENTS. - -The old system of historical linguistics may be likened to an enormous -pyramid; only it is a pity that it should have as its base the small, -square, strong, smart root word, and suspended above it the unwieldy, -lumbering, ill-proportioned, flexion-encumbered sentence-vocable. -Structures of this sort may with some adroitness be made to stand; but -their equilibrium is unstable, and sooner or later they will inevitably -tumble over. - - -XXI.--§ 10. Vocabulary. - -On the lexical side of language we find a development parallel to -that noticed in grammar; and, indeed, if we go deep enough into the -question, we shall see that it is really the very same movement that -has taken place. The more advanced a language is, the more developed -is its power of expressing abstract or general ideas. Everywhere -language has first attained to expressions for the concrete and -special. In accounts of the languages of barbarous races we constantly -come across such phrases as these: “The aborigines of Tasmania had -no words representing abstract ideas; for each variety of gum-tree -and wattle-tree, etc., they had a name; but they had no equivalent -for the expression ‘a tree’; neither could they express abstract -qualities, such as ‘hard, soft, warm, cold, long, short, round’”; -or, The Mohicans have words for cutting various objects, but none to -convey _cutting_ simply. The Zulus have no word for ‘cow,’ but words -for ‘red cow,’ ‘white cow,’ etc. (Sayce S 2. 5, cf. 1. 121). In Bakaïri -(Central Brazil) “each parrot has its special name, and the general -idea ‘parrot’ is totally unknown, as well as the general idea ‘palm.’ -But they know precisely the qualities of each subspecies of parrot -and palm, and attach themselves so much to these numerous particular -notions that they take no interest in the common characteristics. -They are choked in the abundance of the material and cannot manage -it economically. They have only small coin, but in that they must -be said to be excessively rich rather than poor” (K. v. d. Steinen, -_Unter den Naturvölkern Brasiliens_, 1894, 81). The Lithuanians, like -many primitive tribes, have many special, but no common names for -various colours: one word for gray in speaking about wool and geese, -one about horses, one about cattle, one about the hair of men and some -animals, and in the same way for other colours (J. Schmidt, _Kritik d. -Sonantentheorie_ 37). Many languages have no word for ‘brother,’ but -words for ‘elder brother’ and ‘younger brother’; others have different -words according to whose (person and number) father or brother it is -(see, e.g., the paradigm in Gabelentz Spr 421), and the same applies -in many languages to names for various parts of the body. In Cherokee, -instead of one word for ‘washing’ we find different words, according -to what is washed: _kutuwo_ ‘I wash myself,’ _kulestula_ ‘I wash my -head,’ _tsestula_ ‘I wash the head of somebody else,’ _kukuswo_ ‘I wash -my face,’ _tsekuswo_ ‘I wash the face of somebody else,’ _takasula_ ‘I -wash my hands or feet,’ _takunkela_ ‘I wash my clothes,’ _takutega_ ‘I -wash dishes,’ _tsejuwu_ ‘I wash a child,’ _kowela_ ‘I wash meat’ (see, -however, the criticism of Hewitt, _Am. Anthropologist_, 1893, 398). -Primitive man did not see the wood for the trees.[108] - -In some Amerindian languages there are distinct series of numerals for -various classes of objects; thus in Kwakiatl and Tsimoshian (Sapir, -_Language and Environment_ 239); similarly the Melanesians have special -words to denote a definite number of certain objects, e.g. _a buku -niu_ ‘two coconuts,’ _a buru_ ‘ten coconuts,’ _a koro_ ‘a hundred -coconuts,’ _a selavo_ ‘a thousand coconuts,’ _a uduudu_ ‘ten canoes,’ -_a bola_ ‘ten fishes,’ etc. (Gabelentz, _Die melan. Spr._ 1. 23). In -some languages the numerals are the same for all classes of objects -counted, but require after them certain class-denoting words varying -according to the character of the objects (in some respects comparable -to the English twenty _head_ of cattle, Pidgin _piecey_; cf. Yule and -Burnell, Hobson-Jobson s.v. Numerical Affixes). This reminds one of -the systems of weights and measures, which even in civilized countries -up to a comparatively recent period varied not only from country to -country, sometimes even from district to district, but even in the same -country according to the things weighed or measured (in England _stone_ -and _ton_ still vary in this way). - -In old Gothonic poetry we find an astonishing abundance of words -translated in our dictionaries by ‘sea,’ ‘battle,’ ‘sword,’ ‘hero,’ and -the like: these may certainly be considered as relics of an earlier -state of things, in which each of these words had its separate shade -of meaning, which was subsequently lost and which it is impossible -now to determine with certainty. The nomenclature of a remote past -was undoubtedly constructed upon similar principles to those which -are still preserved in a word-group like _horse_, _mare_, _stallion_, -_foal_, _colt_, instead of he-horse, she-horse, young horse, etc. -This sort of grouping has only survived in a few cases in which a -lively interest has been felt in the objects or animals concerned. -We may note, however, the different terms employed for essentially -the same idea in a _flock_ of sheep, a _pack_ of wolves, a _herd_ of -cattle, a _bevy_ of larks, a _covey_ of partridges, a _shoal_ of fish. -Primitive language could show a far greater number of instances of this -description, and, so far, had a larger vocabulary than later languages, -though, of course, it lacked names for a great number of ideas that -were outside the sphere of interest of uncivilized people. - -There was another reason for the richness of the vocabulary of -primitive man: his superstition about words, which made him avoid the -use of certain words under certain circumstances--during war, when out -fishing, during the time of the great cultic festivals, etc.--because -he feared the anger of gods or demons if he did not religiously observe -the rules of the linguistic tabu. Accordingly, in many cases he had -two or more sets of words for exactly the same notions, of which later -generations as a rule preserved only one, unless they differentiated -these words by utilizing them to discriminate objects that were similar -but not identical. - - -XXI.--§ 11. Poetry and Prose. - -On the whole the development of languages, even in the matter of -vocabulary, must be considered to have taken a beneficial course; -still, in certain respects one may to some extent regret the -consequences of this evolution. While our words are better adapted to -express abstract things and to render concrete things with definite -precision, they are necessarily comparatively colourless. The old -words, on the contrary, spoke more immediately to the senses--they -were manifestly more suggestive, more graphic and pictorial: while to -express one single thing we are not unfrequently obliged to piece the -image together bit by bit, the old concrete words would at once present -it to the hearer’s mind as a whole; they were, accordingly, better -adapted to poetic purposes. Nor is this the only point in which we see -a close relationship between primitive words and poetry. - -If by a mental effort we transport ourselves to a period in which -language consisted solely of such graphic concrete words, we shall -discover that, in spite of their number, they would not suffice, taken -all together, to cover everything that needed expression; a wealth -in such words is not incompatible with a certain poverty. They would -accordingly often be required to do service outside of their proper -sphere of application. That a figurative or metaphorical use of words -is a factor of the utmost importance in the life of all languages is -indisputable; but I am probably right in thinking that it played a -more prominent part in old times than now. In the course of ages a -great many metaphors have lost their freshness and vividness, so that -nobody feels them to be metaphors any longer. Examine closely such a -sentence as this: “He _came_ to _look upon_ the low _ebb_ of morals -as an _outcome_ of bad _taste_,” and you will find that nearly every -word is a dead metaphor.[109] But the better stocked a language is with -those ex-metaphors which have become regular expressions for definite -ideas, the less need there is for going out of one’s way to find new -metaphors. The expression of thought therefore tends to become more and -more mechanical or prosaic. - -Primitive man, however, on account of the nature of his language, was -constantly reduced to using words and phrases figuratively: he was -forced to express his thoughts in the language of poetry. The speech -of modern savages is often spoken of as abounding in similes and all -kinds of figurative phrases and allegorical expressions. Just as in -the literature transmitted to us poetry is found in every country to -precede prose, so poetic language is on the whole older than prosaic -language; lyrics and cult songs come before science, and Oehlenschläger -is right when he sings (in N. Møller’s translation): - - Thus Nature drove us; warbling rose - Man’s voice in verse before he spoke in prose. - - -XXI.--§ 12. Emotional Songs. - -If we now try to sum up what has been inferred about primitive speech, -we see that by our backward march we arrived at a language whose -units had a very meagre substance of thought, and this as specialized -and concrete as possible; but at the same time the phonetic body was -ample; and the bigger and longer the words, the thinner the thoughts! -Much cry and little wool! No period has seen less taciturn people than -the first framers of speech; primitive speakers were not reticent -and reserved beings, but youthful men and women babbling merrily on, -without being so very particular about the meaning of each word. They -did not narrowly weigh every syllable--what were a couple of syllables -more or less to them? They chattered away for the mere pleasure of -chattering, resembling therein many a mother of our own time, who -will chatter away to baby without measuring her words or looking too -closely into the meaning of each; nay, who is not a bit troubled by the -consideration that the little deary does not understand a single word -of her affectionate eloquence. But primitive speech--and we return -here to an idea thrown out above--still more resembles the speech of -little baby himself, before he begins to frame his own language after -the pattern of the grown-ups; the language of our remote forefathers -was like that ceaseless humming and crooning with which no thoughts -are as yet connected, which merely amuses and delights the little -one. Language originated as play, and the organs of speech were first -trained in this singing sport of idle hours. - -Primitive language had no great store of ideas, and if we consider -it as an instrument for expressing thoughts, it was clumsy, unwieldy -and ineffectual; but what did that matter? Thoughts were not the -first things to press forward and crave for expression; emotions and -instincts were more primitive and far more powerful. But what emotions -were most powerful in producing germs of speech? To be sure not hunger -and that which is connected with hunger: mere individual self-assertion -and the struggle for material existence. This prosaic side of life was -only capable of calling forth short monosyllabic interjections, howls -of pain and grunts of satisfaction or dissatisfaction; but these are -isolated and incapable of much further development; they are the most -immutable portions of language, and remain now at essentially the same -standpoint as thousands of years ago. - -If after spending some time over the deep metaphysical speculations -of a number of German linguistic philosophers you turn to men like -Madvig and Whitney, you are at once agreeably impressed by the -sobriety of their reasoning and their superior clearness of thought. -But if you look more closely, you cannot help thinking that they -imagine our primitive ancestors after their own image as serious and -well-meaning men endowed with a large share of common-sense. By their -laying such great stress on the communication of thought as the end of -language and on the benefit to primitive man of being able to speak -to his fellow-creatures about matters of vital importance, they leave -you with the impression that these “first framers of speech” were -sedate citizens with a strong interest in the purely business and -matter-of-fact side of life; indeed, according to Madvig, women had no -share in the creating of language. - -In opposition to this rationalistic view I should like, for once in a -way, to bring into the field the opposite view: the genesis of language -is not to be sought in the prosaic, but in the poetic side of life; -the source of speech is not gloomy seriousness, but merry play and -youthful hilarity. And among the emotions which were most powerful in -eliciting outbursts of music and of song, love must be placed in the -front rank. To the feeling of love, which has left traces of its vast -influence on countless points in the evolution of organic nature, are -due not only, as Darwin has shown, the magnificent colours of birds -and flowers, but also many of the things that fill us with joy in -human life; it inspired many of the first songs, and through them was -instrumental in bringing about human language. In primitive speech I -hear the laughing cries of exultation when lads and lasses vied with -one another to attract the attention of the other sex, when everybody -sang his merriest and danced his bravest to lure a pair of eyes to -throw admiring glances in his direction. Language was born in the -courting days of mankind; the first utterances of speech I fancy to -myself like something between the nightly love-lyrics of puss upon the -tiles and the melodious love-songs of the nightingale.[110] - - -XXI.--§ 13. Primitive Singing. - -Love, however, was not the only feeling which tended to call forth -primitive songs. Any strong emotion, and more particularly any -pleasurable excitement, might result in song. Singing, like any other -sort of play, is due to an overflow of energy, which is discharged -in “unusual vivacity of every kind, including vocal vivacity.” Out -of the full heart the mouth sings! Savages will sing whenever they -are excited: exploits of war or of the chase, the deeds of their -ancestors, the coming of a fat dog, any incident “from the arrival -of a stranger to an earthquake” is turned into a song; and most of -these songs are composed extempore. “When rowing, the Coast negroes -sing either a description of some love intrigue or the praise of some -woman celebrated for her beauty.” The Malays beguile all their leisure -hours with the repetition of songs, etc. “In singing, the East African -contents himself with improvising a few words without sense or rime and -repeats them till they nauseate.” (These quotations, and many others, -are found in Herbert Spencer’s _Essay on the Origin of Music_, with -his Postscript.) The reader of Karl Bücher’s painstaking work _Arbeit -und Rhythmus_ (2te aufl. 1899) will know from his numerous examples -and illustrations what an enormous rôle rhythmic singing plays in -the daily life of savages all over the world, how each kind of work, -especially if it is done by many jointly, has its own kind of song, -and how nothing is done except to the sound of vocal music. In many -instances savages are mentioned as very expert in adapting the subjects -of their songs to current events. Nor is this sort of singing on every -and any occasion confined to savages; it is found wherever the indoor -life of civilization has not killed all open-air hilarity; formerly -in our Western Europe people sang much more than they do now. The -Swedish peasant Jonas Stolt (ab. 1820) writes: “I have known a time -when young people were singing from morning till eve. Then they were -carolling both out- and indoors, behind the plough as well as at the -threshing-floor and at the spinning-wheel. This is all over long ago: -nowadays there is silence everywhere; if someone were to try and sing -in our days as we did of old, people would term it bawling.” - -The first things that were expressed in song were, to be sure, neither -deep nor wise; how could you expect it? Note the frequency with which -we are told that the songs of savages consist of or contain totally -meaningless syllables. Thus we read about American Indians that “the -native word which is translated ‘song’ does not suggest any use of -words. To the Indian, the music is of primal importance; words may -or may not accompany the music. When words are used in song, they -are rarely employed as a narrative, the sentences are not apt to be -complete” (Louise Pound, Mod. Lang. Ass. 32. 224), and similarly: “Even -where the slightest vestiges of epic poetry are missing, lyric poetry -of one form or another is always present. It may consist of the musical -use of meaningless syllables that sustain the song; or it may consist -largely of such syllables, with a few interspersed words suggesting -certain ideas and certain feelings; or it may rise to the expression of -emotions connected with warlike deeds, with religious feeling, love, -or even to the praise of the beauties of nature” (Boas, _International -Journ. Amer. Ling._ 1. 8). The magic incantations of the Greenland -Eskimo, according to W. Thalbitzer, contain many incomprehensible -words never used outside these songs (but have they ever been real -words?), and the same is said about the mystic religious formulas of -Maoris and African negroes and many other tribes, as well as about -the old Roman hymns of the Arval Brethren. The mere joy in sonorous -combinations here no doubt counts for very much, as in the splendid but -meaningless metrical lists of names in the Old Norse Edda, and in many -a modern refrain, too. Let me give one example of half (or less than -half) understood strings of syllables from “The Oath of the Canting -Crew” (1749, Farmer’s _Musa Pedestris_, 51): - - No dimber, dambler, angler, dancer, - Prig of cackler, prig of prancer; - No swigman, swaddler, clapper-dudgeon, - Cadge-gloak, curtal, or curmudgeon; - No whip-jack, palliard, patrico; - No jarkman, be he high or low; - No dummerar or romany ... - Nor any other will I suffer. - -In the cultic and ceremonial songs of savage tribes in many parts of -the world this is a prominent trait: it seems, indeed, to be universal. -Even with us the thoughts associated with singing are generally neither -very clear nor very abstruse; like humming or whistling, singing is -often nothing more than an almost automatic outcome of a mood; and -“What is not worth saying can be sung.” Besides, it has been the case -at all times that things transient and trivial have found readier -expression than Socratic wisdom. But the frivolous use tuned the -instrument, and rendered it little by little more serviceable to a -multiplicity of purposes, so that it became more and more fitted to -express everything that touched human souls. - -Men sang out their feelings long before they were able to speak their -thoughts. But of course we must not imagine that “singing” means -exactly the same thing here as in a modern concert hall. When we -say that speech originated in song, what we mean is merely that our -comparatively monotonous spoken language and our highly developed vocal -music are differentiations of primitive utterances, which had more in -them of the latter than of the former. These utterances were at first, -like the singing of birds and the roaring of many animals and the -crying and crooning of babies, exclamative, not communicative--that -is, they came forth from an inner craving of the individual without -any thought of any fellow-creatures. Our remote ancestors had not the -slightest notion that such a thing as communicating ideas and feelings -to someone else was possible. They little suspected that in singing as -nature prompted them they were paving the way for a language capable -of rendering minute shades of thought; just as they could not suspect -that out of their coarse pictures of men and animals there should -one day grow an art enabling men of distant countries to speak to -one another. As is the art of writing to primitive painting, so is -the art of speaking to primitive singing. And the development of the -two vehicles of communication of thought presents other curious and -instructive parallels. In primitive picture-writing, each sign meant a -whole sentence or even more--the image of a situation or of an incident -being given as a whole; this developed into an ideographic writing of -each word by itself; this system was succeeded by syllabic methods, -which had in their turn to give place to alphabetic writing, in which -each letter stands for, or is meant to stand for, one sound. Just as -here the advance is due to a further analysis of language, smaller -and smaller units of speech being progressively represented by single -signs, in an exactly similar way, though not quite so unmistakably, the -history of language shows us a progressive tendency towards analyzing -into smaller and smaller units that which in the earlier stages was -taken as an inseparable whole. - -One point must be constantly kept in mind. Although we now regard the -communication of thought as the main object of speaking, there is no -reason for thinking that this has always been the case; it is perfectly -possible that speech has developed from something which had no other -purpose than that of exercising the muscles of the mouth and throat and -of amusing oneself and others by the production of pleasant or possibly -only strange sounds. The motives for uttering sounds may have changed -entirely in the course of centuries without the speakers being at any -point conscious of this change within them. - - -XXI.--§ 14. Approach to Language. - -We get the first approach to language proper when communicativeness -takes precedence of exclamativeness, when sounds are uttered in -order to ‘tell’ fellow-creatures something, as when birds warn their -young ones of some imminent danger. In the case of human language, -communication is infinitely more full and rich and elaborate; the -question therefore is a very complex one: How did the association of -sound and sense come about? How did that which originally was a jingle -of meaningless sounds come to be an instrument of thought? How did man -become, as Humboldt has somewhere defined him, “a singing creature, -only associating thoughts with the tones”? - -In the case of an onomatopoetic or echo-word like _bow-wow_ and an -interjection like _pooh-pooh_ the association was easy and direct; -such words were at once employed and understood as signs for the -corresponding idea. But this was not the case with the great bulk -of language. Here association of sound with sense must have been -arrived at by devious and circuitous ways, which to a great extent -evade inquiry and make a detailed exposition impossible. But this is -in exact conformity with very much that has taken place in recent -periods; as we have learnt in previous chapters, it is only by indirect -and roundabout ways that many words and grammatical expedients have -acquired the meanings they now have, or have acquired meaning where -they originally had none. Let me remind the reader of the word _grog_ -(p. 308), of interrogative particles (p. 358), of word order (p. 356), -of many endings (Ch. XIX § 13 ff.), of tones (Ch. XIX § 5), of the -French negative _pas_, of vowel-alternations like those in _drink_, -_drank_, _drunk_, or in _foot_, _feet_, etc. Language is a complicated -affair, and no more than most other human inventions has it come about -in a simple way: mankind has not moved in a straight line towards a -definitely perceived goal, but has muddled along from moment to moment -and has thereby now and then stumbled on some happy expedient which has -then been retained in accordance with the principle of the survival of -the fittest. - -We may perhaps succeed in forming some idea of the most primitive -process of associating sound and sense if we call to mind what was -said above on the signification of the earliest words, and try to -fathom what that means. The first words must have been as concrete -and specialized in meaning as possible. Now, what are the words whose -meaning is the most concrete and the most specialized? Without any -doubt proper names--that is, of course, proper names of the good old -kind, borne by and denoting only one single individual. How easily -might not such names spring up in a primitive state such as that -described above! In the songs of a particular individual there would -be a constant recurrence of a particular series of sounds sung with a -particular cadence; no one can doubt the possibility of such individual -habits being contracted in olden as well as in present times. Suppose, -then, that “in the spring time, the only pretty ring time” a lover -was in the habit of addressing his lass “with a hey, and a ho, and a -hey nonino.” His comrades and rivals would not fail to remark this, -and would occasionally banter him by imitating and repeating his -“hey-and-a-ho-and-a-hey-nonino.” But when once this had been recognized -as what Wagner would term a person’s ‘leitmotiv,’ it would be no far -cry from mimicking it to using the “hey-and-a-ho-and-a-hey-nonino” as -a sort of nickname for the man concerned; it might be employed, for -instance, to signal his arrival. And when once proper names had been -bestowed, common names (or nouns) would not be slow in following; we -see the transition from one to the other class in constant operation, -names originally used exclusively to denote an individual being -used metaphorically to connote that person’s most characteristic -peculiarities, as when we say of one man that he is a ‘Crœsus’ or a -‘Vanderbilt’ or ‘Rockefeller,’ and of another that he is ‘no Bismarck.’ -A German schoolboy in the ’eighties said in his history lesson that -Hannibal swore he would always be a _Frenchman_ to the Romans. This is, -at least, one of the ways in which language arrives at designations of -such ideas as ‘rich,’ ‘statesman’ and ‘enemy.’ From the proper name -of _Cæsar_ we have both the Russian _tsar’_ and the German _kaiser_, -and from _Karol_ (Charlemagne) Russian _korol’_ ‘king’ (also in the -other Slav languages) and Magyar _király_. Besides being designations -for persons, proper names may also in some cases come to mean tools -or other objects, originally in most cases probably as a term of -endearment, as when in thieves’ slang a crowbar or lever is called a -_betty_ or _jemmy_; E. _derrick_ and _dirk_, as well as G. _dietrich_, -Dan. _dirk_, Swed. _dyrk_, is nothing but _Dietrich_ (_Derrick_, -_Theodoricus_), and thus in innumerable instances. In the École -polytechnique in Paris there are many words of the same character: -_bacha_ ‘cours d’allemand’ from a teacher, M. Bacharach, _borius_ -‘bretelles’ from General Borius, _malo_ ‘éperon’ from Captain Malo, -etc. (MSL 15. 179). _Pamphlet_ is from Pamphilet, originally _Pamphilus -seu de Amore_, the name of a popular booklet on an erotic subject. -Compare also the history of the words _bluchers_, _jack_ (boot-jack, -jack for turning a spit, a pike, etc., also _jacket_), _pantaloon_, -_hansom_, _boycott_, _to burke_, to name only a few of the best-known -examples. - - -XXI.--§ 15. The Earliest Sentences. - -Again, we saw above that the further back we went in the history of -known languages, the more the sentence was one indissoluble whole, in -which those elements which we are accustomed to think of as single -words were not yet separated. Now, the idea that language began -with sentences, not with words, appears to Whitney (_Am. Journ. of -Philol._ 1. 338) to be, “if capable of any intelligent and intelligible -statement, _a fortiori_, too wild and baseless to deserve respectful -mention” (cf. also Madvig Kl 85). But the absurdity appears only if -we think of sentences like those found in our languages, consisting -of elements (words) capable of being used in other combinations and -there forming other sentences: this seems to be what Gabelentz (Spr -351) imagines; but it is not so wild to imagine as the first beginning -something which can be _translated_ into our languages by means of a -sentence, but which is not ‘articulated’ in the same way as such a -sentence; we translate or explain the dental click (‘_tut_’) by means -of the sentence ‘that is a pity,’ but the interjection is not in other -respects a grammatical ‘sentence.’ Or we may take an illustration from -the modern use of a telegraphic code: if _suzaw_ means ‘I have not -received your telegram,’ or _sempo_ ‘reserve one single room and bath -at first-class hotel’--we have unanalyzable wholes capable of being -rendered in complete sentences, but not in every way analogous to these -sentences. - -Now, it is just units of this character (though not, of course, with -exactly the same kind of meaning as the two code words) whose genesis -we can most easily imagine on the supposition of a primitive period -of meaningless singing. If a certain number of people have together -witnessed some incident and have accompanied it with some sort of -impromptu song or refrain, the two ideas are associated, and later on -the same song will tend to call forth in the memory of those who were -present the idea of the whole situation. Suppose some dreaded enemy has -been defeated and slain; the troop will dance round the dead body and -strike up a chant of triumph, say something like ‘Tarara-boom-de-ay!’ -This combination of sounds, sung to a certain melody, will now easily -become what might be called a proper name for that particular event; it -might be roughly translated, ‘The terrible foe from beyond the river is -slain,’ or ‘We have killed the dreadful man from beyond the river,’ or, -‘Do you remember when we killed him?’ or something of the same sort. -Under slightly altered circumstances it may become the proper name of -the man who slew the enemy. The development can now proceed further by -a metaphorical transference of the expression to similar situations -(‘There is another man of the same tribe: let us kill him as we did -the first!’) or by a blending of two or more of these proper-name -melodies. How this kind of blending may lead to the development of -something like derivative affixes may be gathered from our chapter on -Secretion; it may also result in parts of the whole melodic utterance -being disengaged as something more like our ‘words.’ From the nature -of the subject it is impossible to give more than hints, but I seem to -see ways by which primitive ‘lieder ohne worte’ may have become, first, -indissoluble rigmaroles, with something like a dim meaning attached to -them, and then gradually combinations of word-like smaller units, more -and more capable of being analyzed and combined with others of the same -kind. Anyhow, this theory seems to explain better than any other the -great part which fortuitous coincidence and irregularity always play in -that part of any language which is not immediately intelligible, thus -both in lexical and grammatical elements. - -Primitive man came to attach meaning to what were originally rambling -sequences of syllables in pretty much the same way as the child comes -to attach a meaning to many of the words he hears from his elders, -the whole situation in which they are heard giving a clue to their -interpretation. The difference is that in the latter case the speaker -has already associated a meaning with the sound; but from the point -of view of the hearer this is comparatively immaterial: the savage of -a far-distant age hearing some syllables for the first time and the -child hearing them nowadays are in essentially the same position as -to their interpretation. Parallels are also found in the words of the -_mamma_ class (Ch. VIII § 8), in which hearers give a signification to -something pronounced unintentionally, the same syllables being then -capable of serving afterwards as real words. If one of our forebears -on some occasion accidentally produced a sequence of sounds, and if -the people around him were seen (or heard) to respond appreciatively, -he would tend to settle on the same string of sounds and repeat it -on similar occasions, and in this way it would gradually become -‘conventionalized’ as a symbol of what was then foremost in his and in -their minds. As in agriculture primitive man reaped before he sowed, -so also in his vocal outbursts he first reaped understanding, and then -discovered that by intentionally sowing the same seed he was able to -call forth the same result. And as with corn, he would slowly and -gradually, by weeding out (i.e. by not using) what was less useful to -him, improve the quality, till finally he had come into possession of -the marvellous, though far from perfect, instrument which we now call -our language. The development of our ordinary speech has been largely -an intellectualization, and the emotional quality which played the -largest part in primitive utterances has to some extent been repressed; -but it is not extinct, and still gives a definite colouring to all -passionate and eloquent speaking and to poetic diction. Language, after -all, is an art--one of the finest of arts. - - -XXI.--§ 16. Conclusion. - -Language, then, began with half-musical unanalyzed expressions -for individual beings and solitary events. Languages composed of, -and evolved from, such words and quasi-sentences are clumsy and -insufficient instruments of thought, being intricate, capricious -and difficult. But from the beginning the tendency has been one of -progress, slow and fitful progress, but still progress towards greater -and greater clearness, regularity, ease and pliancy. No one language -has arrived at perfection; an ideal language would always express -the same thing by the same, and similar things by similar means; any -irregularity or ambiguity would be banished; sound and sense would be -in perfect harmony; any number of delicate shades of meaning could be -expressed with equal ease; poetry and prose, beauty and truth, thinking -and feeling would be equally provided for: the human spirit would have -found a garment combining freedom and gracefulness, fitting it closely -and yet allowing full play to any movement. - -But, however far our present languages are from that ideal, we must be -thankful for what has been achieved, seeing that-- - - Language is a perpetual orphic song, - Which rules with Dædal harmony a throng - Of thoughts and forms, which else senseless and shapeless were. - -FOOTNOTES: - -[107] It may not be superfluous expressly to point out that there is no -contradiction between what is said here on the disappearance of tones -and the remarks made above (Ch. XIX § 4) on Chinese tones. There the -change wrought in the meaning of a word by a mere change of tone was -explained on the principle that the difference of meaning was at an -earlier stage expressed by affixes, the tone that is now concentrated -on one syllable belonging formerly to two syllables or perhaps more. -But this evidently presupposes that each syllable had already some -tone of its own--and that is what in this chapter is taken to be the -primitive state. Word-tones were originally frequent, but meaningless; -afterwards they were dropped in some languages, while in others they -were utilized for sense-distinguishing purposes. - -[108] On the lack of abstract and general terms in savage languages, -see also Ginneken LP 108 and the works there quoted. - -[109] Of course, if instead of _look upon_ and _outcome_ we had taken -the corresponding terms of Latin root, _consider_ and _result_, the -metaphors would have been still more dead to the natural linguistic -instinct. - -[110] From the experience I had with my previous book, _Progress_, -from which this chapter has, with some alterations and amplifications, -passed into this volume, I feel impelled here to warn those critics -who do me the honour to mention my theory of the origin of language, -not to look upon it as if it were contained simply in my remarks on -primitive love-songs, etc., and as if it were based on _a priori_ -considerations, like the older speculative theories. What I may perhaps -claim as my original contribution to the solution of this question -is the _inductive_ method based on the three sources of information -indicated on p. 416, and especially on the ‘backward’ consideration -of the history of language. Some critics think they have demolished -my view by simply representing it as a romantic dream of a primitive -golden age in which men had no occupation but courting and singing. -I have never believed in a far-off golden age, but rather incline to -believe in a progressive movement from a very raw and barbarous age to -something better, though it must be said that our own age, with its -national wars, world wars and class wars, makes one sometimes ashamed -to think how little progress our so-called civilization has made. But -primitive ages were probably still worse, and the only thing I have -felt bold enough to maintain is that in those days there were some -moments consecrated to youthful hilarity, and that this gave rise, -among other merriment, to vocal play of such a character as closely to -resemble what we may infer from the known facts of linguistic history -to have been a stage of language earlier than any of those accessible -to us. There is no ‘romanticism’ (in a bad sense) in such a theory, and -it can only be refuted by showing that the view of language and its -development on which it is based is erroneous from beginning to end. - - - - -INDEX - - - _a_ Sanskrit, 52; - _-a_ in fem., 392; - in pl., 394 - - _abbot_, 156 - - ablaut, _see_ apophony - - abstract terms, 429 - - accent, _see_ stress _and_ tone - - accusative, name, 20 - - actors, 276 - - adaptation of suffixes, 386 f. - - adjective flexion, 129; - concord, 348 f. - - African languages, _see_ Bantu - - agglutination, 54, 58, 76, 376; - agglutination theory, 367 ff., 375 ff. - - agreement, _see_ concord - - ambiguities, 319, 341 ff. - - America, race mixtures, 203 ff. - - American English, 260 - - American Indian languages, 57, 181, 187, 229, 233, 256, 334, 425, 427, 430 - - analogy, 70, 93 f., 129 f., 162 f., 289 - - analytic languages, 36, 334 ff., 422 ff. - - anatomical causes of change, 255 - - aphesis, 273 - - apophony, 46, 53, 91 ff., 311 - - aposiopesis, 273 - - appreciation of languages, 29 ff., 57 f., 60, 62, 319 ff.; - formula, 324 - - archaic forms, 294 - - Armenian, 195 f. - - article, 378 - - Aryan, name, 63 f.; - languages, _passim_ - - _as_, root, 49 - - Ascoli, 192 ff. - - assimilation, 109, 168 f., 264 f., 280 - - auxiliary words, 358 - - - _babe_, 157 - - _bacco_, 171 - - back-formations, 173, 178 - - Balkan tongues, agreements, 215 - - Bantu, 239, 352 ff., 365 - - _-bar_, suffix, 377 - - Basque, 210, 427 - - Baudouin de Courtenay, 327 - - Bavarian _wo-st bist_, 281 - - Beach-la-Mar, 216 ff. - - _bead_, 175 - - _bhu_, root, 49 - - bilinguism, 147 ff. - - biographical or biological science of language, 8 - - blending, 132, 281 f., 311, 312 f., 390 - - Bloomfield, 390 - - _boon_, 175 - - Bopp, 47 ff., 56 n. - - borrowing of words, 208 - - _bound_, 176 - - bow-wow theory, 413 - - boys, 146 - - Bredsdorff, 43 n., 70 - - Bridges, 286 - - Bröndal, 200 - - Brugmann, 92 f.; - on gender, 391 - - _bube_, 157 - - _buncombe_, 409 - - - cacuminals, 196 - - Caribbean, 237 ff. - - Carlyle, 145 - - case-system, English, 268 ff.; - in old languages, 337 ff.; - importance, 341 - - _catch_, 400 - - _ch_ becomes _f_, 168 - - changes, causes of, 255 ff. - - child, 103 ff.; - sounds, 105; - understanding, 113; - classification of things, 114 f.; - vocabulary, 124; - grammar, 128 ff.; - sentences, 133; - echoism, 135; - why learns so well, 140; - influence of other children, 147; - word-invention, 151 ff.; - influence of, 161 ff.; - indirect influence, 178; - new languages, 180 ff. - - Chinese, 36, 54, 57, 286, 369 ff. - - Chinook, 228 ff. - - classification of languages, 35 f., 54, 76 ff. - - classifying instinct, 388 - - clicks, 415, 419 - - climate, 256 - - clippings, _see_ stump-words - - coalescence of words, 174, 376 ff. - - Cœurdoux, 33 - - Collitz, 45 n., 257, 381 - - concord, verbal, 335; - nominal, 348; - in Bantu, 352 ff. - - concrete words, 429 - - Condillac, 27 - - confusion of words, 122, 172 - - congeneric groups, 389 f. - - conjugation, _see_ verb - - consciousness, 130; - threshold of, 138 - - consonant-shift, 43 ff., 195, 197, 204, 256, 258 f. - - contamination, _see_ blending - - convergent changes, 284 f. - - copula, 48 f. - - correctness, latitude of, 282 ff. - - creation of new words, 151 ff. - - Creole, 226 ff. - - _cuckoo_, 406 - - cultural loan-words, 209 - - _curry favour_, 173 - - curtailing of words, 108, 169 f., 328 f. - - Curtius, 83, 94 - - - _-d_ in _loved_, 51, 381 - - Darwin, 414 - - dead languages, 67 - - decay, 55, 59, 62, 77, 319 ff. - - declension, _see_ case-system - - Delbrück, 93, 96 - - dialect, study of, 68; - spoken by children, 147 - - Diez, 85 - - differentiations, 176, 272 - - diminutives, 180, 402 - - ding-dong theory, 415 - - divergent changes, 288 - - doublets, 272 - - Dravidian influence on Indian, 196 - - drunken speech, 279 - - _dump_, 313 - - - _e_ original in Aryan, 52, 91 - - ease theory, 261 ff. - - echoism, 135; - cf. echo-words - - echo-words, 313, 398 ff. - - economizing of effort, _see_ ease-theory - - effort in speaking, 261 ff., 324 ff. - - _eglino_, 281 - - emotion, influence on sound, 276 - - _-en_ in plural, 385 - - ending, _see_ flexion, suffix - - English, Grimm’s appreciation, 62; - foreign influence, 202, 210, 212 ff.; - rapid change, 261; - case-system, 268 ff.; - future tense, 274; - vowel-shift, 243, 284; - word-order, 344 f.; - genitive, 350 - - entangling, 422 - - equidistant changes, 284 - - _-er_ in plural, 386 - - estimation of languages, _see_ appreciation - - Etruscan, 195 - - etymology, sound laws, 295; - principles, 305 ff.; - object of, 316; - etymology of _rag_, 300; - of _sun_, _say_, _see_, 306; - of _krieg_, 307; - of _grog_, _ganz_, 308; - of _hope_, 309; - of _nut_, _stumm_, 311; - of _mais_, _maar_, _men_, 315; - of _moon_, _daughter_, _mother_, 318 - - euphemism, 245 ff. - - euphony, 278 - - exceptions to sound-laws, 296 ff. - - exertion in speaking, 261 ff., 324 ff. - - expressive sounds preserved, 288 - - extension of sound laws, 290; - of suffixes, 386 ff. - - extra-lingual influences, 278 - - - _f_ for _th_, 167; - in _enough_, etc., 168; - in Spanish, 193 - - fable in Proto-Aryan, 81 - - _fain_, 176 - - fashion in language, 291 - - _father_, 117 - - Feist, 194 ff. - - feminine, 391 ff.; - in _-i_, 394, 402; - cf. woman - - Finnic, 197 f., 207 - - flexion, 35, 54 f., 58 f., 76 ff., 79; - origin of, 377 ff. - - foreign languages, mistakes in noting down, 116 f.; - influence of, 191 ff. - - forgetfulness, 176 - - forms, number of, 332, 337; - origin of, 49, 58, 377 ff. - - French influence on English, 202, 209, 214; - pronouns and verbs, 422 f. - - frequency, influence on phonetic development, 267 - - _-ful_, suffix, 376 - - - Gabelentz, 98, 369 - - _ganz_, 308 - - _gape_, 288 - - gender, 346 f., 391 ff. - - general and specific terms, 274, 429 f. - - genitive, name, 20; - group, 351; - _s_ in, 382, 383 n. - - geographical distribution of languages, 187; - influence on change, 256 - - German language, appreciation of, 29, 31, 60; - sound-shift, 43 ff., 195 f., 283; - forms, 341 ff.; - word-order, 344 - - Germanic, _see_ Gothonic - - gibberish, 149 f. - - girls, 146 - - _gleam_, _gloom_, 401 - - glottogonic theories abandoned, 96 - - Gothonic (Germanic, Teutonic), 42; - sound-shift, _see_ consonant-shift - - gradation, _see_ apophony - - grammar, children’s, 128 ff.; - foreign influence, 213; - of primitive languages, 421 - - grammatical elements, origin, 48, 58, 61 - - Greek linguistic speculation, 19 f.; - vowels, 91; - personal pronouns, 286 n.; - Modern Greek, 301 - - Grimm, 37, 40 ff., 60 ff. - - Grimm’s Law, 43 f.; - _see_ consonant-shift - - _grog_, 308 - - group genitive, 129, 351; - groups of words with similar meaning, 389 - - - _h_ for _f_ in Spanish, 193; - for _s_, etc., 263 - - _habaidedeima_, 322, 329, 331 f. - - Hale, 181 ff. - - haplology, 281, 329 - - harmony of vowels, 280 - - Hebrew, 21 - - Hegel, 72 f. - - Hempl, 201 ff. - - Herder, 27 f. - - hereditary aptness for a language, 75, 141 - - Hermann, 48 - - Hervas, 22 - - Herzog, 164 f. - - _hide_, 121 - - Hirt, 192, 203 f., 382 f. - - historical point of view, 32, 42 - - homophones, 285 f. - - _-hood_, suffix, 376 - - _hope_, 309 - - humanization of language, 327 f. - - Humboldt, 55 ff. - - hypercorrect forms, 294 - - - I, the pronoun, 123 f. - - _i_ denoting small, feminine, near, 402 - - idioms, 139 - - imitation, 291 ff.; - of sounds, 398, 413 f. - - imperative, 403 - - incorporation, 58, 79, 425 - - Indian grammarians, 20; - cacuminals, 196; - cf. American Indian, Sanskrit - - indirect ways of obtaining expressions, 438 - - indissoluble expressions of several ideas, 334, 422 ff., 428 ff. - - Indo-European (Indo-Germanic), _see_ Aryan - - indolence, _see_ ease-theory - - inflexion, _see_ flexion - - interjections, 414 - - interrogative sentences, 137; - particles, 358 - - invention of words, 151 ff. - - irregularities in old languages, 338 f., 379, 425 - - isolating languages, 36, 76, 366 ff. - - - Japanese, 243 - - jaw-breakers, 280 - - jaw-measurements, 104 - - Jenisch, 29 ff. - - Johannson, 341 ff. - - Jones, William, 33 - - [ju·], 290 f. - - - Karlgren, 372 f. - - Keltic languages, 38, 39, 53; - substratum, 192 ff. - - Kuhn, 371 - - _kw_ becomes _p_, 168 - - - languages, rise of new, 180 ff. - - language-teaching, 145 - - lapses, 279 - - Latin, study of, 22 f.; - influence, 209, 215; - forms, 334, 338 f., 343; - word-order, 350 - - latitude of correctness, 282 - - law as applied to sound-changes, 297 - - leaps in phonetic development, 167; - in meanings, 175 - - Leibniz, 22 - - lengthening, emotional, 277, 403; - of words, 330 - - Lenz, 204 - - Lepsius, 370 - - Leskien, 93 - - life as applied to language, 7 - - lingua geral, 234 - - linguistics, position of, 64 f., 73, 86, 97 - - _little_, 407 - - little language, 103, 106, 144, 147 - - living languages, study of, 97 - - loan-words, sound-substitution, 207; - general theory, 208; - culture, 209; - classes, 211; - with symbolic sounds, 409 - - loss of sounds, 108, 168, 328 f. - - love-songs, 433 f. - - Luxemburg, bilinguism in, 148 - - _-ly_, suffix, 377 - - - _m_ in adversative conjunctions, 314 ff.; - case-ending, 382 - - _ma_, _maar_, 314 f. - - Madvig, 84, 433 - - _magis_, _mais_, 314 f. - - makeshift languages, 232 ff. - - _mamma_, 154 ff. - - man and woman, 142, 237 ff. - - Mauritius Creole, 226 ff. - - meaning, delimitation of, 118 f.; - words of opposite meaning, 120; - words with several meanings, 121; - shifting of meaning, 174; - cf. semantic changes - - meaningless gibberish, 149 f.; - singing, 436 - - Meillet, 55, 198 f. - - memory, children’s, 143 - - _men_, 315 - - mental states, words for, 401 - - Meringer, 162 f., 280, 291 - - metanalysis, 173 - - metaphors, 431 - - metathesis, 108, 281 - - Meyer-Benfey, 256 - - _milk_, 158 - - Misteli, 79 - - misunderstandings, 282, 286 f., 319 - - mixed languages, 191 ff. - - modern languages, study of, 68; - compared with ancient, 322 ff. - - Möller, H., 139, 308, 382 - - _mon_, 358 - - monosyllabic languages, 36, 367 ff. - - _month_, 318 - - moods, 380 - - _moon_, 318 - - _mother_, 155, 318 - - mother-tongue, 146 - - movement, words denoting, 399 - - mountains, linguistic changes in, 256 f. - - mouth-filling words, 403 - - Müller, Friedrich, 79, 338 - - Müller, Max, 88 ff., 414 - - Murray, 269 - - mutation, 37, 46 - - mutilation of lips, 256; - of words, 266 - - _my_, 384 f. - - - _-n_ in _mine_, 384 f. - - names of relations, 118; - proper, 439 - - nasalis sonans, 92, 317 f. - - national psychology, 258 - - negation, 136; - redundant, 352 - - neo-grammarians, _see_ young-grammarians - - new languages, 180 ff. - - Noiré, 415 - - nominal forms, 337 ff.; - concord, 348 ff. - - number in verbs, 335; - in pronouns, 347; - in nouns, 129, 349, 355, 385, 394 f. - - numerals, 119; - borrowed, 211; - in succession, 281; - distinct for various classes, 430 - - nursery language, 179 - - _nut_, 311 - - - _o_ original in Aryan, 52, 91 - - old languages compared with modern, 322 ff. - - _on_, 287 - - _oncle_, 271 n. - - onomatopœia, 150, 313, 398 ff. - - opposite meaning, 120 - - order of words, _see_ word-order - - organism, language as an, 7, 65 - - organs of speech, used for other purposes, 278; - development, 416, 436 - - _orient_, 175 - - origin of language, 26 ff., 61, 412 ff.; - of grammatical elements, 367 ff. - - Osthoff, 93 - - _ox_, _oxen_, 385 - - - palatal law, 90 f. - - Panini, 20 - - _pap_, 158 - - _papa_, 154 ff. - - parenthesizing, 350 f. - - passive, Scandinavian, 50, 377; - Latin, 50, 381 - - _patter_, 407 - - Paul, 94 f., 162 - - periods of rapid change, 259 - - personal forms in verbs, 53, 335, 383 - - pet-names, 108, 169 - - philology, 64 f., 97 - - phonetic laws, _see_ sound changes, sound laws - - Pidgin-English, 221 ff. - - _pittance_, 408 - - Plato, 19, 396 - - playfulness, 148, 298 f., 432 ff. - - _plumbum_, _plummet_, _plunge_, 313 f. - - plural, _see_ number - - poetry, 300, 431 f. - - polysynthetic, 423, 425 - - pooh-pooh theory, 414 - - _pope_, 156 - - popular etymology, 122 - - portmanteau words, 313 - - possessive pronouns, 384 f. - - prepositions, 137 f.; - borrowed, 211 - - prescriptive grammar, 24 - - preterit, weak, 51, 381 - - primitive languages, 417 ff. - - progressive tendency, 319 ff. - - pronouns, 123; - borrowed, 212; - possessive, 384; - French, 422 - - proper names, 436 - - prosiopesis, 273 - - Proto-Aryan, 80 f., 90 f. - - punning phrases, 300 - - _pupil_, 157 - - _puppet_, 157 - - Pușcariu, 205 - - - question, 137; - word-order and auxiliaries, 357 ff. - - quick, 407 - - - _r_ in Latin passive, 381; - sound of _r_ weakened, 244; - _r-_ and _n-_ stems, 339, 390 - - race and language, 75; - race-mixture, 201 ff. - - rapidity of change, 259 - - Rapp, 68 ff. - - Rask, 36 ff., 43, 46 - - rational, everything originally r., 316 - - reaction against change, 293 - - reconstruction, 80 ff., 317 - - reduplication, 109, 169 - - relationship between languages, 38, 53; - terms of, 117, 154 ff. - - _right_, 180 - - _roll_, 374, 408 - - Romanic languages, 202, 205 f., 234 ff., 260; - future, 378 - - root-determinatives, 311 - - roots, 52, 367 ff., 373 ff. - - Rousseau, 26 - - - _s_ in passive, 50, 377, 381; - case-ending, 213, 381 ff.; - in English plural, 214; - in Russian and Spanish, 266; - Latin disappears, 362 - - Sandfeld, 215 - - Sanskrit, 33, 67; - vowels, 52, 90 f.; - consonants, 90 f., 196; - drama, 241 f. - - savages, languages of, 417, 426 ff. - - saving of effort, of space, of time, 264 - - Scandinavian influence on English, 212, 214; - passive, 50, 377; - article, 378 - - Scherer, 96 - - Schlegel, A. W., 36 - - Schlegel, F., 34 f. - - Schleicher, 71 ff. - - Schuchardt, 191, 213, 219, 267 - - scorn, words expressive of, 401 - - Scotch, 193 n. - - screaming, 103 - - secondary echoism, 406 - - secret languages, 149 f. - - secretion, 384 ff. - - semantic changes, 174 f., 274 ff. - - Semitic, 36, 52 - - sentences, 133; - the earliest, 439 ff.; - sentence stress, 272 - - separative linguistics, 67 - - _seqw-_, 306 f. - - sex, 146, 237 ff.; - cf. gender - - shifters, 123 - - shortening, 328 f.; - cf. stump-words - - signification, how apprehended, 113 ff.; - cf. semantic changes - - significative sounds preserved, 267 f., 271, 287 - - similarities cause confusion, 120 f. - - simplification, 332 ff. - - singing, 420, 432 ff. - - slang, 247, 299 f. - - small, words for, 402 - - smile, 278 - - _so_, 250 - - Société de Linguistique, 96, 412 - - _son_, E., 120, 286 - - songs, primitive, 420, 432 ff. - - sound changes, _passim_; - _see_ especially 161 ff., 191 ff., 242 ff., 255 ff. - - sound laws, 93; - in children, 106 f.; - extension and metamorphosis, 290; - destructive, 289; - spreading, 291; - in the science of etymology, 295 ff. - - sound-shift, Gothonic, _see_ consonant-shift - - special terms in primitive speech, 429 ff. - - speed of utterance, 258 - - spelling pronunciations, 294 - - splitting, _see_ differentiation - - Spoonerism, 280 - - stable and unstable sounds, 199 f. - - Steinthal, 79, 87 - - strengthening of sounds, 404 f. - - stress, Aryan, 93; - Gothonic, 195; - nature and influence of, 271 ff. - - _stumm_, 311 - - stump-words, 108, 169 f. - - substantive, _see_ nominal _and_ flexion - - substratum theory, 191 ff. - - subtraction, 173 - - suffixes, origin, 376 f.; - extension, 386 f.; - tainting, 388 - - suggestiveness, 408; - cf. symbolism - - _suppletivwesen_, 426 - - Sweet, 97, 161, 264 - - syllables, number of, 330 - - symbolism, 396 ff. - - syntax, 66, 95; - foreign influence, 214; - blends, 282; - simplification, 340 - - synthetic languages, 36, 334 ff., 421 f. - - - _ta_, 159 - - tabu, 239 ff., 431 - - tainting of suffixes, 388 - - _tata_, 158 - - _-teer_, suffix, 388 - - Telugu, 301 - - tempo, 258 - - Teutonic, _see_ Gothonic - - _th_ becomes _f_, _v_, 167 - - _they_ for _he or she_, 347 - - _this_ and _that_, 403 - - Thomson, 90 n., 267, 427 - - threshold, under the, 138 - - _ti_, 358 f. - - time, a child’s conception of, 120 - - tone, 111; - in Chinese, 369, 370; - in Danish dialect, 371; - in primitive languages, 419 - - Tooke, Horne, 49 - - translation-loans, 215 - - translators introduce foreign words, 210 - - _tripos_, 115 - - twins having separate language, 185 f. - - - _u_, French, 192 ff.; - English, 290 f. - - umlaut, 37 - - understanding, a baby’s, 113 f. - - units of language, 422 - - - value, influence on phonetic development, 266 ff. - - verb, substantive, 48; - flexional forms, 130; - simplification, 332 ff.; - concord, 335 - - verbal character of roots, 374 f. - - Verner, 93; - Verner’s Law, 195, 197 f. - - vocabulary, extent of, 124 ff.; - in primitive speech, 429 - - voicing of consonants, in Gothonic and English, 198; - symbolic, 405 - - vowel-harmony, 280 - - vowels, number of Aryan, 44, 52, 91 - - vulgar speech, 261, 299 - - - wars, influence on language, 260 - - weak preterit, 51, 381 - - weakening of words, 266 - - Wessely, 197 - - Wheeler, 293 - - Whitney, 88, 323, 367 - - Windisch, 208 - - women as language teachers, 142; - women’s language, 237 ff. - - word, what constitutes one, 125, 422 f. - - word-division, 132, 173 f. - - word-formation, 131; - cf. invention, suffixes - - word-order, 344 ff., 355 ff.; - in Chinese, 369 ff. - - worthless words or sounds, 266 ff. - - Wundt, 98, 258 - - - _yesterday_, 120 - - yo-he-ho theory, 415 - - _you_ for _I_, 124 - - young-grammarians, 93 - - - Zulu, _see_ Bantu - - - _Printed in Great Britain by_ - UNWIN BROTHERS, LIMITED WOKING AND LONDON - - - - - * * * * * - - - - -Transcriber's Note - -On p. 373, "ź" is used to represent a letter "z" with a vertical line -diacritic. - - -The following apparent errors have been corrected: - -p. 9 "etc" changed to "etc." - -p. 49 "will" changed to "_will_" - -p. 63 "‘Sanskritic," changed to "‘Sanskritic,’" - -p. 98 "Bréal Delbrück" changed to "Bréal, Delbrück" - -p. 98 "Meillet Meringer" changed to "Meillet, Meringer" - -p. 109 "VIII, § 9" changed to "VIII, § 8" - -p. 173 (note) "‘Subtraktionsdannelser,”" changed to -"“Subtraktionsdannelser,”" - -p. 184 "pronunication" changed to "pronunciation" - -p. 216 (note) "25 1" changed to "251" - -p. 216 "Mittleilungen" changed to "Mitteilungen" - -p. 228 "chapter" changed to "chapter." - -p. 234 (note) "ii" changed to "ii." - -p. 237 "Grammar" changed to "Grammar." - -p. 239 "accounted for" changed to "accounted for." - -p. 247 "a women" changed to "a woman" - -p. 254 "peoples" changed to "peoples." - -p. 266 "a might" changed to "as might" - -p. 274 "economzie" changed to "economize" - -p. 280 "word·" changed to "word;" - -p. 284 "(æ·]" changed to "[æ·]" - -p. 290 "[see" changed to "(see" - -p. 294 (note) "laughing" changed to "laughing." - -p. 301 "_A Memorandum on Modern Telugu_" changed to "_A Memorandum on -Modern Telugu_," - -p. 309 "_Glossar_" changed to "_Glossar._" - -p. 339 "Nolde, _Einleit. in die Altertumswiss_" changed to "Norden, -_Einleit. in die Altertumswiss._" - -p. 353 "_isizwe_" changed to "_isi_zwe" - -p. 355 "_amazwe_" changed to "_ama_zwe" - -p. 358 "uo longer" changed to "no longer" - -p. 358 "qnestion" changed to "question" - -p. 358 "_oexn_" changed to "_oxen_" - -p. 370 "is has" changed to "it has" - -p. 375 "with may" changed to "which may" - -p. 393 "respectively" changed to "respectively." - -p. 394 "ablative" changed to "ablative." - -p. 400 "hill;" changed to "hill;’" - -p. 417 "forgotten than" changed to "forgotten that" - -p. 441 "Ch. VIII § 9" changed to "Ch. VIII § 8" - -p. 443 "_wost bist_" changed to "_wo-st bist_" - -p. 447 "Puscariu" changed to "Pușcariu" - -p. 447 "stump-words," changed to "stump-words" - - -Inconsistent or old spelling, punctuation and hyphenation have -otherwise been retained as printed. - - -The following possible errors have been left as printed: - -p. 130 Il a pleuvy - -p. 215 austellung - -p. 292 abusee - -p. 359 dison - -p. 378 finire - - - - - - -End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of Language, by Otto Jespersen - -*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK LANGUAGE *** - -***** This file should be named 53038-0.txt or 53038-0.zip ***** -This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: - http://www.gutenberg.org/5/3/0/3/53038/ - -Produced by Henry Flower and the Online Distributed -Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This file was -produced from images generously made available by The -Internet Archive/American Libraries.) - -Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions will -be renamed. - -Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright -law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, -so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United -States without permission and without paying copyright -royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part -of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm -concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, -and may not be used if you charge for the eBooks, unless you receive -specific permission. If you do not charge anything for copies of this -eBook, complying with the rules is very easy. You may use this eBook -for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, -performances and research. They may be modified and printed and given -away--you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks -not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the -trademark license, especially commercial redistribution. - -START: FULL LICENSE - -THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE -PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK - -To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free -distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work -(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full -Project Gutenberg-tm License available with this file or online at -www.gutenberg.org/license. - -Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works - -1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to -and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property -(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all -the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or -destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your -possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a -Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound -by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the -person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph -1.E.8. - -1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be -used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who -agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few -things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See -paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this -agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below. - -1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the -Foundation" or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection -of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual -works in the collection are in the public domain in the United -States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the -United States and you are located in the United States, we do not -claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, -displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as -all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope -that you will support the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting -free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm -works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the -Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with the work. You can easily -comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the -same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg-tm License when -you share it without charge with others. - -1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern -what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are -in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, -check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this -agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, -distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any -other Project Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no -representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any -country outside the United States. - -1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: - -1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other -immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear -prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work -on which the phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the -phrase "Project Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, -performed, viewed, copied or distributed: - - This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and - most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no - restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it - under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this - eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the - United States, you'll have to check the laws of the country where you - are located before using this ebook. - -1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is -derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not -contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the -copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in -the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are -redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply -either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or -obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted -with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution -must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any -additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms -will be linked to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works -posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the -beginning of this work. - -1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm -License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this -work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. - -1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this -electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without -prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with -active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project -Gutenberg-tm License. - -1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, -compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including -any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access -to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format -other than "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official -version posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site -(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense -to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means -of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original "Plain -Vanilla ASCII" or other form. Any alternate format must include the -full Project Gutenberg-tm License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. - -1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, -performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works -unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing -access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -provided that - -* You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from - the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method - you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed - to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he has - agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid - within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are - legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty - payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in - Section 4, "Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg - Literary Archive Foundation." - -* You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies - you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he - does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm - License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all - copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue - all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg-tm - works. - -* You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of - any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the - electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of - receipt of the work. - -* You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free - distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. - -1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work or group of works on different terms than -are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing -from both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and The -Project Gutenberg Trademark LLC, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. - -1.F. - -1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable -effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread -works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project -Gutenberg-tm collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may -contain "Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate -or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other -intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or -other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or -cannot be read by your equipment. - -1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right -of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project -Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all -liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal -fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT -LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE -PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE -TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE -LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR -INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH -DAMAGE. - -1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a -defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can -receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a -written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you -received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium -with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you -with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in -lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person -or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second -opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If -the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing -without further opportunities to fix the problem. - -1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth -in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO -OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT -LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. - -1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied -warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of -damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement -violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the -agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or -limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or -unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the -remaining provisions. - -1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the -trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone -providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in -accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the -production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, -including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of -the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this -or any Project Gutenberg-tm work, (b) alteration, modification, or -additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any -Defect you cause. - -Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm - -Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of -electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of -computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It -exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations -from people in all walks of life. - -Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the -assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's -goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will -remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure -and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future -generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see -Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at -www.gutenberg.org - - - -Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation - -The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit -501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the -state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal -Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification -number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by -U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. - -The Foundation's principal office is in Fairbanks, Alaska, with the -mailing address: PO Box 750175, Fairbanks, AK 99775, but its -volunteers and employees are scattered throughout numerous -locations. Its business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt -Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up to -date contact information can be found at the Foundation's web site and -official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact - -For additional contact information: - - Dr. Gregory B. Newby - Chief Executive and Director - gbnewby@pglaf.org - -Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation - -Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide -spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of -increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be -freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest -array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations -($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt -status with the IRS. - -The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating -charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United -States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a -considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up -with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations -where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND -DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular -state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate - -While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we -have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition -against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who -approach us with offers to donate. - -International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make -any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from -outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. - -Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation -methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other -ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To -donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate - -Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. - -Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project -Gutenberg-tm concept of a library of electronic works that could be -freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and -distributed Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of -volunteer support. - -Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed -editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in -the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not -necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper -edition. - -Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search -facility: www.gutenberg.org - -This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, -including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to -subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. - diff --git a/old/53038-0.zip b/old/53038-0.zip Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index a2226bd..0000000 --- a/old/53038-0.zip +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/53038-h.zip b/old/53038-h.zip Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 0354de1..0000000 --- a/old/53038-h.zip +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/53038-h/53038-h.htm b/old/53038-h/53038-h.htm deleted file mode 100644 index 597b78b..0000000 --- a/old/53038-h/53038-h.htm +++ /dev/null @@ -1,22784 +0,0 @@ -<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" - "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd"> -<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en" lang="en"> - <head> - <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=utf-8" /> - <meta http-equiv="Content-Style-Type" content="text/css" /> - <title> - Language: Its Nature Development And Origin, by Otto Jespersen—The Project Gutenberg eBook - </title> - <link rel="coverpage" href="images/cover.jpg" /> - <style type="text/css"> - -body { - margin-left: 10%; - margin-right: 10%; -} - - h1,h2,h3,h4{ - text-align: center; /* all headings centered */ - clear: both; - margin-top: 2em; -} - -p { - margin-top: .51em; - text-align: justify; - margin-bottom: .49em; -} - -.toc {text-align: left; max-width: 40em;} - -.chaptersummary p {text-align: center;} - -.sig {margin-left: 4em;} - -.p2 {margin-top: 2em;} -.p4 {margin-top: 4em;} - -.small {font-size: small;} -.smaller {font-size: smaller;} -.larger {font-size: larger;} -.large {font-size: large;} - -hr { - width: 33%; - margin-top: 2em; - margin-bottom: 2em; - margin-left: auto; - margin-right: auto; - clear: both; -} - -hr.tb {width: 50%; margin-left: 25%; margin-right: 25%;} -hr.full {width: 95%; margin-left: 2.5%; margin-right: 2.5%;} - - -ul { list-style-type: none; } -li.ifrst { margin-top: 1em; } -li.indx { margin-top: .5em; } -li.isub1 {text-indent: 1em;} - -.break,div.chapter -{ - page-break-before: always; -} - -h1 -{ - page-break-before: always; -} - -.nobreak -{ - page-break-before: avoid; -} - -h2 -{ - page-break-before: avoid; -} - -table { - margin-left: auto; - margin-right: auto; -} - -.pagenum { - position: absolute; - right: 1%; - font-size: x-small; - font-weight: normal; - font-variant: normal; - font-style: normal; - letter-spacing: normal; - text-indent: 0em; - text-align: right; - color: #999999; - background-color: #ffffff; -} - -.blockquot { - margin-left: 5%; - margin-right: 10%; -} - - -.lock {white-space: nowrap;} - -.left {text-align: left;} - -.center {text-align: center;} - -.right {text-align: right;} - -.smcap {font-variant: small-caps;} -.lowercase { text-transform:lowercase; } - - -/* Images */ -.figcenter { - margin: auto; - margin-top: 4em; - text-align: center; -} - - -.bright {border-right: thin solid black;} - -/* Footnotes */ -.footnotes {page-break-before: avoid;} - -.footnote {margin-left: 10%; margin-right: 10%;} - -.footnote .label {position: absolute; right: 84%; text-align: right;} - -.fnanchor { - vertical-align: super; - font-size: .8em; - text-decoration: - none; -} - -.spaced {margin-left: 4em; margin-right: 4em;} - -.spacedl {margin-left: 2em;} - -/* Poetry */ -.poetry-container - { - text-align: center; - margin: 0; - } - -.poetry - { - display: inline-block; - text-align: left; - } - -.poetry .stanza {margin: 1em 0em 1em 0em;} - -.poetry .verse - { - text-indent: -3em; - padding-left: 3em; - } - -.poetry .indent4 {text-indent: -1em;} -.poetry .indent20 {text-indent: 7em;} - -/* Transcriber's notes */ -.transnote {background-color: #E6E6FA; - color: black; - font-size:smaller; - padding:0.5em; - page-break-before: always; - margin-bottom:5em; - font-family:sans-serif, serif; } - -@media handheld -{ - .poetry - { - display: block; - margin-left: 1.5em; - } -} - </style> - </head> -<body> - - -<pre> - -The Project Gutenberg EBook of Language, by Otto Jespersen - -This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most -other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions -whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of -the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at -www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you'll have -to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this ebook. - -Title: Language - Its Nature, Development and Origin - -Author: Otto Jespersen - -Release Date: September 12, 2016 [EBook #53038] - -Language: English - -Character set encoding: UTF-8 - -*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK LANGUAGE *** - - - - -Produced by Henry Flower and the Online Distributed -Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This file was -produced from images generously made available by The -Internet Archive/American Libraries.) - - - - - - -</pre> - - - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_1" id="Page_1">[1]</a></span></p> - - - - - - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_2" id="Page_2">[2]</a></span></p> -<p class="break p4 center"> -<span class="large">LANGUAGE</span><br /> -ITS NATURE<br /> -DEVELOPMENT<br /> -AND ORIGIN -</p> - - - - -<h2 class="break"><a name="BY_THE_SAME_AUTHOR" id="BY_THE_SAME_AUTHOR"><i>BY THE SAME AUTHOR</i></a></h2> - - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p><b>Articulation of Speech Sounds</b> (Marburg: Elwert)</p> - -<p><b>Studier over engelske kasus</b> (out of print)</p> - -<p><b>Chaucers liv og digtning</b> (out of print)</p> - -<p><b>Progress in Language</b> (out of print)</p> - -<p><b>Fonetik</b> (Copenhagen: Gyldendal)</p> - -<p><b>How to Teach a Foreign Language</b> (London: George -Allen & Unwin)</p> - -<p><b>Lehrbuch der Phonetik</b> (Leipzig: Teubner)</p> - -<p><b>Phonetische Grundfragen</b> (Leipzig: Teubner)</p> - -<p><b>Growth and Structure of the English Language</b> -(Leipzig: Teubner)</p> - -<p><b>A Modern English Grammar: I, II</b> (Heidelberg: -Winter)</p> - -<p><b>Sprogets logik</b> (Copenhagen: Gyldendal)</p> - -<p><b>Nutidssprog</b> (Copenhagen: Gyldendal)</p> - -<p><b>Negation in English and Other Languages</b> (Copenhagen: -Höst)</p> - -<p><b>Chapters on English</b> (London: George Allen & Unwin)</p> - -<p><b>Rasmus Rask</b> (Copenhagen: Gyldendal)</p></div> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_3" id="Page_3">[3]</a></span></p> - - - - -<h1> -LANGUAGE<br /> -<span class="large"> -ITS NATURE<br /> -DEVELOPMENT<br /> -AND ORIGIN<br /></span></h1> - -<p class="center p2"> -<span class="small">BY</span><br /> - -<span class="large">OTTO JESPERSEN</span> -<br /> -PROFESSOR IN THE UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN</p> - -<div class="figcenter" style="width: 300px;"> -<img src="images/colophon.jpg" width="300" height="306" alt="colophon" /> -</div> - -<p class="center p2"> -LONDON: GEORGE ALLEN & UNWIN LTD.<br /> -RUSKIN HOUSE, 40 MUSEUM STREET, W.C. 1 -</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_4" id="Page_4">[4]</a></span></p> - - - - -<p class="break center p4"> -<i>First published in 1922</i></p> - -<p class="center p2"> -(<i>All rights reserved</i>) -</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_5" id="Page_5">[5]</a></span></p> - - - - -<p class="break center p4"> -TO<br /> - -VILHELM THOMSEN -</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_6" id="Page_6">[6]</a></span></p> - - - - -<div class="poetry-container"><div class="poetry"><div class="stanza" lang="da" xml:lang="da"> - <div class="verse">Glæde, når av andres mund</div> - <div class="verse indent4">jeg hørte de tanker store,</div> - <div class="verse">Glæde over hvert et fund</div> - <div class="verse indent4">jeg selv ved min forsken gjorde.</div> -</div></div></div> - - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_7" id="Page_7">[7]</a></span></p> - - - -<h2><a name="PREFACE" id="PREFACE">PREFACE</a></h2> - - -<p>The distinctive feature of the science of language as conceived -nowadays is its historical character: a language or a word is no -longer taken as something given once for all, but as a result of -previous development and at the same time as the starting-point -for subsequent development. This manner of viewing languages -constitutes a decisive improvement on the way in which languages -were dealt with in previous centuries, and it suffices to mention -such words as ‘evolution’ and ‘Darwinism’ to show that linguistic -research has in this respect been in full accordance with tendencies -observed in many other branches of scientific work during the last -hundred years. Still, it cannot be said that students of language -have always and to the fullest extent made it clear to themselves -what is the real essence of a language. Too often expressions are -used which are nothing but metaphors—in many cases perfectly -harmless metaphors, but in other cases metaphors that obscure -the real facts of the matter. Language is frequently spoken of -as a ‘living organism’; we hear of the ‘life’ of languages, of -the ‘birth’ of new languages and of the ‘death’ of old languages, -and the implication, though not always realized, is that a language -is a living thing, something analogous to an animal or a plant. -Yet a language evidently has no separate existence in the same -way as a dog or a beech has, but is nothing but a function of -certain living human beings. Language is activity, purposeful -activity, and we should never lose sight of the speaking individuals -and of their purpose in acting in this particular way. When -people speak of the life of words—as in celebrated books with such -titles as <cite lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">La vie des mots</cite>, or <cite>Biographies of Words</cite>—they do -not always keep in view that a word has no ‘life’ of its own: -it exists only in so far as it is pronounced or heard or remembered -by somebody, and this kind of existence cannot properly be compared -with ‘life’ in the original and proper sense of that word. -The only unimpeachable definition of a word is that it is a human -habit, an habitual act on the part of one human individual which -has, or may have, the effect of evoking some idea in the mind<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_8" id="Page_8">[8]</a></span> -of another individual. A word thus may be rightly compared -with such an habitual act as taking off one’s hat or raising one’s -fingers to one’s cap: in both cases we have a certain set of muscular -activities which, when seen or heard by somebody else, -shows him what is passing in the mind of the original agent or -what he desires to bring to the consciousness of the other man -(or men). The act is individual, but the interpretation presupposes -that the individual forms part of a community with analogous -habits, and a language thus is seen to be one particular set of -human customs of a well-defined social character.</p> - -<p>It is indeed possible to speak of ‘life’ in connexion with -language even from this point of view, but it will be in a different -sense from that in which the word was taken by the older school -of linguistic science. I shall try to give a biological or biographical -science of language, but it will be through sketching the linguistic -biology or biography of the speaking individual. I shall give, -therefore, a large part to the way in which a child learns his mother-tongue -(Book II): my conclusions there are chiefly based on the -rich material I have collected during many years from direct -observation of many Danish children, and particularly of my -own boy, Frans (see my book <cite lang="da" xml:lang="da">Nutidssprog hos börn og voxne</cite>, Copenhagen, -1916). Unfortunately, I have not been able to make first-hand -observations with regard to the speech of English children; -the English examples I quote are taken second-hand either from -notes, for which I am obliged to English and American friends, -or from books, chiefly by psychologists. I should be particularly -happy if my remarks could induce some English or American -linguist to take up a systematic study of the speech of children, -or of one child. This study seems to me very fascinating indeed, -and a linguist is sure to notice many things that would be passed -by as uninteresting even by the closest observer among psychologists, -but which may have some bearing on the life and development -of language.</p> - -<p>Another part of linguistic biology deals with the influence -of the foreigner, and still another with the changes which the -individual is apt independently to introduce into his speech even -after he has fully acquired his mother-tongue. This naturally -leads up to the question whether all these changes introduced by -various individuals do, or do not, follow the same line of direction, -and whether mankind has on the whole moved forward or not in -linguistic matters. The conviction reached through a study of -historically accessible periods of well-known languages is finally -shown to throw some light on the disputed problem of the ultimate -origin of human language.</p> - -<p>Parts of my theory of sound-change, and especially my objections<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_9" id="Page_9">[9]</a></span> -to the dogma of blind sound-laws, date back to my very first -linguistic paper (1886); most of the chapters on Decay or Progress -and parts of some of the following chapters, as well as the theory -of the origin of speech, may be considered a new and revised -edition of the general chapters of my <cite>Progress in Language</cite> (1894). -Many of the ideas contained in this book thus are not new with -me; but even if a reader of my previous works may recognize -things which he has seen before, I hope he will admit that they -have been here worked up with much new material into something -like a system, which forms a fairly comprehensive theory of -linguistic development.</p> - -<p>Still, I have not been able to compress into this volume the -whole of my philosophy of speech. Considerations of space have -obliged me to exclude the chapters I had first intended to write -on the practical consequences of the ‘energetic’ view of language -which I have throughout maintained; the estimation of linguistic -phenomena implied in that view has bearings on such questions -as these: What is to be considered ‘correct’ or ‘standard’ in -matters of pronunciation, spelling, grammar and idiom? Can (or -should) individuals exert themselves to improve their mother-tongue -by enriching it with new terms and by making it purer, more precise, -more fit to express subtle shades of thought, more easy to handle -in speech or in writing, etc.? (A few hints on such questions may -be found in my paper “Energetik der Sprache” in <cite>Scientia</cite>, 1914.) -Is it possible to construct an artificial language on scientific principles -for international use? (On this question I may here briefly -state my conviction that it is extremely important for the whole -of mankind to have such a language, and that Ido is scientifically -and practically very much superior to all previous attempts, -Volapük, Esperanto, Idiom Neutral, Latin sine flexione, etc. But -I have written more at length on that question elsewhere.) With -regard to the system of grammar, the relation of grammar to -logic, and grammatical categories and their definition, I must refer -the reader to <cite lang="da" xml:lang="da">Sprogets Logik</cite> (Copenhagen, 1913), and to the first -chapter of the second volume of my <cite>Modern English Grammar</cite> -(Heidelberg, 1914), but I shall hope to deal with these questions -more in detail in a future work, to be called, probably, <cite>The Logic -of Grammar</cite>, of which some chapters have been ready in my -drawers for some years and others are in active preparation.</p> - -<p>I have prefixed to the theoretical chapters of this work a short -survey of the history of the science of language in order to show -how my problems have been previously treated. In this part -(Book I) I have, as a matter of course, used the excellent works -on the subject by Benfey, Raumer, Delbrück (<cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Einleitung in das -Sprachstudium</cite>, 1st ed., 1880; I did not see the 5th ed., 1908, till<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_10" id="Page_10">[10]</a></span> -my own chapters on the history of linguistics were finished), -Thomsen, Oertel and Pedersen. But I have in nearly every case -gone to the sources themselves, and have, I think, found interesting -things in some of the early books on linguistics that have been -generally overlooked; I have even pointed out some writers who -had passed into undeserved oblivion. My intention has been on -the whole to throw into relief the great lines of development -rather than to give many details; in judging the first part of my -book it should also be borne in mind that its object primarily is -to serve as an introduction to the problems dealt with in the rest -of the book. Throughout I have tried to look at things with my -own eyes, and accordingly my views on a great many points are -different from those generally accepted; it is my hope that an -impartial observer will find that I have here and there succeeded -in distributing light and shade more justly than my predecessors.</p> - -<p>Wherever it has been necessary I have transcribed words -phonetically according to the system of the <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Association Phonétique -Internationale</i>, though without going into too minute distinction -of sounds, the object being, not to teach the exact pronunciation -of various languages, but rather to bring out clearly the insufficiency -of the ordinary spelling. The latter is given throughout in -italics, while phonetic symbols have been inserted in brackets [ ]. -I must ask the reader to forgive inconsistency in such matters -as Greek accents, Old English marks of vowel-length, etc., which -I have often omitted as of no importance for the purpose of this -volume.</p> - -<p>I must express here my gratitude to the directors of the -Carlsbergfond for kind support of my work. I want to thank -also Professor G. C. Moore Smith, of the University of Sheffield: -not only has he sent me the manuscript of a translation of -most of my <cite lang="da" xml:lang="da">Nutidssprog</cite>, which he had undertaken of his own -accord and which served as the basis of Book II, but he has -kindly gone through the whole of this volume, improving and -correcting my English style in many passages. His friendship and -the untiring interest he has always taken in my work have been -extremely valuable to me for a great many years.</p> - -<p class="sig"> -OTTO JESPERSEN. -</p> - -<p> -<span class="smcap">University of Copenhagen</span>,<br /> -<i>June 1921</i>.<br /> -</p> - - - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_11" id="Page_11">[11]</a></span></p> - - - - -<h2><a name="CONTENTS" id="CONTENTS">CONTENTS</a></h2> - - -<div class="center"> -<table class="toc" border="0" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" summary=""> -<tr><td colspan="3" class="right"><span class="small">PAGE</span></td></tr> -<tr><td colspan="2"><span class="smcap">Preface</span></td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_7">7</a></td></tr> -<tr><td colspan="2"><span class="smcap">Abbreviations of Book Titles, Etc.</span></td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_13">13</a></td></tr> -<tr><td colspan="2"><span class="smcap">Phonetic Symbols</span></td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_16">16</a></td></tr> -<tr><td colspan="3" class="center"><span class="small"><i>BOOK I</i></span></td></tr> -<tr><td colspan="3" class="center">HISTORY OF LINGUISTIC SCIENCE</td></tr> -<tr><td colspan="3" class="left"><span class="small">CHAPTER</span></td></tr> -<tr><td class="right">I. </td><td><span class="smcap">Before 1800</span></td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_19">19</a></td></tr> -<tr><td class="right">II. </td><td><span class="smcap">Beginning of Nineteenth Century</span></td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_32">32</a></td></tr> -<tr><td class="right">III. </td><td><span class="smcap">Middle of Nineteenth Century</span></td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_63">63</a></td></tr> -<tr><td class="right">IV. </td><td><span class="smcap">End of Nineteenth Century</span></td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_89">89</a></td></tr> -<tr><td colspan="3" class="center"><span class="small"><i>BOOK II</i></span></td></tr> -<tr><td colspan="3" class="center">THE CHILD</td></tr> -<tr><td class="right">V. </td><td><span class="smcap">Sounds</span></td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_103">103</a></td></tr> -<tr><td class="right">VI. </td><td><span class="smcap">Words</span></td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_113">113</a></td></tr> -<tr><td class="right">VII. </td><td><span class="smcap">Grammar</span></td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_128">128</a></td></tr> -<tr><td class="right">VIII. </td><td><span class="smcap">Some Fundamental Problems</span></td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_140">140</a></td></tr> -<tr><td class="right">IX. </td><td><span class="smcap">The Influence of the Child on Linguistic Development</span></td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_161">161</a></td></tr> -<tr><td class="right"><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_12" id="Page_12">[12]</a></span>X. </td><td><span class="smcap">The Influence of the Child</span> (<i>continued</i>)</td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_172">172</a></td></tr> -<tr><td colspan="3" class="center"><span class="small"><i>BOOK III</i></span></td></tr> -<tr><td colspan="3" class="center">THE INDIVIDUAL AND THE WORLD</td></tr> -<tr><td class="right">XI. </td><td><span class="smcap">The Foreigner</span></td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_191">191</a></td></tr> -<tr><td class="right">XII. </td><td><span class="smcap">Pidgin and Congeners</span></td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_216">216</a></td></tr> -<tr><td class="right">XIII. </td><td><span class="smcap">The Woman</span></td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_237">237</a></td></tr> -<tr><td class="right">XIV. </td><td><span class="smcap">Causes of Change</span></td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_255">255</a></td></tr> -<tr><td class="right">XV. </td><td><span class="smcap">Causes of Change</span> (<i>continued</i>)</td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_276">276</a></td></tr> -<tr><td colspan="3" class="center"><span class="small"><i>BOOK IV</i></span></td></tr> -<tr><td colspan="3" class="center">DEVELOPMENT OF LANGUAGE</td></tr> -<tr><td class="right">XVI. </td><td><span class="smcap">Etymology</span></td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_305">305</a></td></tr> -<tr><td class="right">XVII. </td><td><span class="smcap">Progress or Decay?</span></td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_319">319</a></td></tr> -<tr><td class="right">XVIII. </td><td><span class="smcap">Progress</span></td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_337">337</a></td></tr> -<tr><td class="right">XIX. </td><td><span class="smcap">Origin of Grammatical Elements</span></td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_367">367</a></td></tr> -<tr><td class="right">XX. </td><td><span class="smcap">Sound Symbolism</span></td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_396">396</a></td></tr> -<tr><td class="right">XXI. </td><td><span class="smcap">The Origin of Speech</span></td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_412">412</a></td></tr> -<tr><td></td><td><span class="smcap">Index</span></td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_443">443</a></td></tr> -</table></div> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_13" id="Page_13">[13]</a></span></p> - - - - -<h2><a name="ABBREVIATIONS_OF_BOOK_TITLES_ETC" id="ABBREVIATIONS_OF_BOOK_TITLES_ETC">ABBREVIATIONS OF BOOK TITLES, ETC.</a></h2> - - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>Bally LV = Ch. Bally, <cite lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Le Langage et la Vie</cite>, Genève 1913.</p> - -<p>Benfey Gesch = Th. Benfey, <cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Geschichte der Sprachwissenschaft</cite>, München -1869.</p> - -<p>Bleek CG = W. H. I. Bleek, <cite>Comparative Grammar of South African Languages</cite>, -London 1862-69.</p> - -<p>Bloomfield SL = L. Bloomfield, <cite>An Introduction to the Study of Language</cite>, -New York 1914.</p> - -<p>Bopp C = F. Bopp, <cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Conjugationssystem der Sanskritsprache</cite>, Frankfurt 1816.</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>AC = <cite>Analytical Comparison</cite> (see ch. ii, § 6).</p> - -<p>VG = <cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Vergleichende Grammatik</cite>, 2te Ausg., Berlin 1857.</p></div> - -<p>Bréal M = M. Bréal, <cite lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Mélanges de Mythologie et de Linguistique</cite>, Paris 1882.</p> - -<p>Brugmann VG = K. Brugmann, <cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Grundriss der Vergleichenden Grammatik</cite>, -Strassburg 1886 ff., 2te Ausg., 1897 ff.</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>KG = <cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Kurze Vergleichende Grammatik</cite>, Strassburg 1904.</p></div> - -<p>ChE = O. Jespersen, <cite>Chapters on English</cite>, London 1918.</p> - -<p>Churchill B = W. Churchill, <cite>Beach-la-Mar</cite>, Washington 1911.</p> - -<p>Curtius C = G. Curtius, <cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Zur Chronologie der indogerm. Sprachforschung</cite>, -Leipzig 1873.</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>K = <cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Zur Kritik der neuesten Sprachforschung</cite>, Leipzig 1885.</p></div> - -<p>Dauzat V = A. Dauzat, <cite lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">La Vie du Langage</cite>, Paris 1910.</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>Ph = <cite lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">La Philosophie du Langage</cite>, Paris 1912.</p></div> - -<p>Delbrück E = B. Delbrück, <cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Einleitung in das Sprachstudium</cite>, Leipzig 1880; -5te Aufl. 1908.</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>Grfr = <cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Grundfragen der Sprachforschung</cite>, Strassburg 1901.</p></div> - -<p>E. = English.</p> - -<p>EDD = J. Wright, <cite>The English Dialect Dictionary</cite>, Oxford 1898 ff.</p> - -<p>ESt = <cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Englische Studien</cite>.</p> - -<p>Feist KI = S. Feist, <cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Kultur, Ausbreitung und Herkunft der Indogermanen</cite>, -Berlin 1913.</p> - -<p>Fonetik = O. Jespersen, <cite lang="da" xml:lang="da">Fonetik</cite>, Copenhagen 1897.</p> - -<p>Fr. = French.</p> - -<p>Gabelentz Spr = G. v. d. Gabelentz, <cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Die Sprachwissenschaft</cite>, Leipzig 1891.</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>Gr = <cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Chinesische Grammatik</cite>, Leipzig 1881.</p></div> - -<p>Ginneken LP = J. v. Ginneken, <cite lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Principes de Linguistique Psychologique</cite>, -Amsterdam, Paris 1907.</p> - -<p>Glenconner = P. Glenconner, <cite>The Sayings of the Children</cite>, Oxford 1918.</p> - -<p>Gr. = Greek.</p> - -<p>Greenough and Kittredge W = J. B. Greenough and G. L. Kittredge, <cite>Words -and their Ways in English Speech</cite>, London 1902.</p> - -<p>Grimm Gr. = J. Grimm, <cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Deutsche Grammatik</cite>, 2te Ausg., Göttingen 1822.</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>GDS = <cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Geschichte der deutschen Sprache</cite>, 4te Aufl., Leipzig 1880.</p></div> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_14" id="Page_14">[14]</a></span></p> - -<p>GRM = <cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Germanisch-Romanische Monatsschrift</cite>.</p> - -<p>GS = O. Jespersen, <cite>Growth and Structure of the English Language</cite>, 3rd ed., -Leipzig 1919.</p> - -<p>Hilmer Sch = H. Hilmer, <cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Schallnachahmung, Wortschöpfung u. Bedeutungswandel</cite>, -Halle 1914.</p> - -<p>Hirt GDS = H. Hirt, <cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Geschichte der deutschen Sprache</cite>, München 1919.</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>Idg = <cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Die Indogermanen</cite>, Strassburg 1905-7.</p></div> - -<p>Humboldt Versch = W. v. Humboldt, <cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Verschiedenheit des menschlichen -Sprachbaues</cite> (number of pages as in the original edition).</p> - -<p>IF = <cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Indogermanische Forschungen</cite>.</p> - -<p>KZ = Kuhn’s <cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung</cite>.</p> - -<p>Lasch S = R. Lasch, <cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Sondersprachen u. ihre Entstehung</cite>, Wien 1907.</p> - -<p>LPh = O. Jespersen, <cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Lehrbuch der Phonetik</cite>, 3te Aufl., Leipzig 1920.</p> - -<p>Madvig 1857 = J. N. Madvig, <cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">De grammatische Betegnelser</cite>, Copenhagen 1857.</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>Kl = <cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Kleine philologische Schriften</cite>, Leipzig 1875.</p></div> - -<p>ME. = Middle English.</p> - -<p>MEG = O. Jespersen, <cite>Modern English Grammar</cite>, Heidelberg 1909, 1914.</p> - -<p>Meillet DI = A. Meillet, <cite lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Les Dialectes Indo-Européens</cite>, Paris 1908.</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>Germ. = <cite lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Caractères généraux des Langues Germaniques</cite>, Paris 1917.</p> - -<p>Gr = <cite lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Aperçu d’une Histoire de la Langue Grecque</cite>, Paris 1913.</p> - -<p>LI = <cite lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Introduction à l’étude comp. des Langues Indo-Européennes</cite>, -2e éd., Paris 1908.</p></div> - -<p>Meinhof Ham = C. Meinhof, <cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Die hamitischen Sprachen</cite>, Hamburg 1912.</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>MSA = <cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Die moderne Sprachforschung in Afrika</cite>, Berlin 1910.</p></div> - -<p>Meringer L = R. Meringer, <cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Aus dem Leben der Sprache</cite>, Berlin 1908.</p> - -<p>Misteli = F. Misteli, <cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Charakteristik der haupts. Typen des Sprachbaues</cite>, -Berlin 1893.</p> - -<p>MSL = <cite lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Mémoires de la Société de Linguistique de Paris</cite>.</p> - -<p>Fr. Müller Gr = Friedrich Müller, <cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Grundriss der Sprachwissenschaft</cite>, Wien -1876 ff.</p> - -<p>Max Müller Ch = F. Max Müller, <cite>Chips from a German Workshop</cite>, vol. iv, -London 1875.</p> - -<p>NED = <cite>A New English Dictionary</cite>, by Murray, etc., Oxford 1884 ff.</p> - -<p>Noreen UL = A. Noreen, <cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Abriss der urgermanischen Lautlehre</cite>, Strassburg -1894.</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>VS = <cite lang="sv" xml:lang="sv">Vårt Språk</cite>, Lund 1903 ff.</p></div> - -<p>Nyrop Gr = Kr. Nyrop, <cite lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Grammaire Historique de la Langue Française</cite>, -Copenhagen 1914 ff.</p> - -<p>OE. = Old English (Anglo-Saxon).</p> - -<p>Oertel = H. Oertel, <cite>Lectures on the Study of Language</cite>, New York 1901.</p> - -<p>OFr. = Old French.</p> - -<p>ON. = Old Norse.</p> - -<p>Passy Ch = P. Passy, <cite lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Les Changements Phonétiques</cite>, Paris 1890.</p> - -<p>Paul P = H. Paul, <cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Prinzipien der Sprachgeschichte</cite>, 4te Aufl., Halle 1909.</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>Gr = <cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Grundriss der germanischen Philologie</cite>.</p></div> - -<p>PBB = <cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Beitrage zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache</cite> (Paul u. Braune).</p> - -<p>Pedersen GKS = H. Pedersen, <cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Vergl. Grammatik der keltischen Sprachen</cite>, -Göttingen 1909.</p> - -<p>PhG = O. Jespersen, <cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Phonetische Grundfragen</cite>, Leipzig 1904.</p> - -<p>Porzezinski Spr = V. Porzezinski, <cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Einleitung in die Sprachwissenschaft</cite>, -Leipzig 1910.</p> - -<p>Progr. = O. Jespersen, <cite>Progress in Language</cite>, London 1894.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_15" id="Page_15">[15]</a></span></p> - -<p>Rask P = R. Rask [Prisskrift] <cite lang="da" xml:lang="da">Undersögelse om det gamle Nordiske Sprogs -Oprindelse</cite>, Copenhagen 1818.</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>SA = <cite lang="da" xml:lang="da">Samlede Afhandlinger</cite>, Copenhagen 1834.</p></div> - -<p>Raumer Gesch = R. v. Raumer, <cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Geschichte der germanischen Philologie</cite>, -München 1870.</p> - -<p>Ronjat = J. Ronjat, <cite lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Le Développement du Langage chez un Enfant Bilingue</cite>, -Paris 1913.</p> - -<p>Sandfeld Jensen S = Kr. Sandfeld Jensen, <cite lang="da" xml:lang="da">Sprogvidenskaben</cite>, Copenhagen -1913.</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>Sprw = <cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Die Sprachwissenschaft</cite>, Leipzig 1915.</p></div> - -<p>Saussure LG = F. de Saussure, <cite lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Cours de Linguistique Générale</cite>, Lausanne -1916.</p> - -<p>Sayce P = A. H. Sayce, <cite>Principles of Comparative Philology</cite>, 2nd ed., London -1875.</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>S = <cite>Introduction to the Science of Language</cite>, London 1880.</p></div> - -<p>Scherer GDS = W. Scherer, <cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache</cite>, Berlin -1878.</p> - -<p>Schleicher I, II = A. Schleicher, <cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Sprachvergleichende Untersuchungen</cite>, I-II, -Bonn 1848, 1850.</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>Bed. = <cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Die Bedeutung der Sprache</cite>, Weimar 1865.</p> - -<p>C = <cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Compendium der vergl. Grammatik</cite>, 4te Aufl., Weimar 1876.</p> - -<p>D = <cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Die deutsche Sprache</cite>, Stuttgart 1860.</p> - -<p>Darw. = <cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Die Darwinische Theorie und die Sprachwissenschaft</cite>, -Weimar 1873.</p> - -<p>NV = <cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Nomen und Verbum</cite>, Leipzig 1865.</p></div> - -<p>Schuchardt SlD = H. Schuchardt, <cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Slawo-Deutsches u. Slawo-Italienisches</cite>, -Graz 1885.</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>KS = <cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Kreolische Studien</cite> (Wien, Akademie).</p></div> - -<p>Simonyi US = S. Simonyi, <cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Die Ungarische Sprache</cite>, Strassburg 1907.</p> - -<p>Skt. = Sanskrit.</p> - -<p>Sommer Lat. = F. Sommer, <cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Handbuch der latein. Laut- und Formenlehre</cite>, -Heidelberg 1902.</p> - -<p>Stern = Clara and William Stern, <cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Die Kindersprache</cite>, Leipzig 1907.</p> - -<p>Stoffel Int. = C. Stoffel, <cite>Intensives and Down-toners</cite>, Heidelberg 1901.</p> - -<p>Streitberg Gesch = W. Streitberg, <cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Geschichte der indogerm. Sprachwissenschaft</cite>, -Strassburg 1917.</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>Urg = <cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Urgermanische Grammatik</cite>, Heidelberg 1896.</p></div> - -<p>Sturtevant LCh = E. H. Sturtevant, <cite>Linguistic Change</cite>, Chicago 1917.</p> - -<p>Sütterlin WSG = L. Sütterlin, <cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Das Wesen der sprachlichen Gebilde</cite>, Heidelberg -1902.</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>WW = <cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Werden und Wesen der Sprache</cite>, Leipzig 1913.</p></div> - -<p>Sweet CP = H. Sweet, <cite>Collected Papers</cite>, Oxford 1913.</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>H = <cite>The History of Language</cite>, London 1900.</p> - -<p>PS = <cite>The Practical Study of Languages</cite>, London 1899.</p></div> - -<p>Tegnér SM = E. Tegnér, <cite lang="sv" xml:lang="sv">Språkets makt öfver tanken</cite>, Stockholm 1880.</p> - -<p>Verner = K. Verner, <cite lang="da" xml:lang="da">Afhandlinger og Breve</cite>, Copenhagen 1903.</p> - -<p>Wechssler L = E. Wechssler, <cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Giebt es Lautgesetze?</cite> Halle 1900.</p> - -<p>Whitney G = W. D. Whitney, <cite>Life and Growth of Language</cite>, London 1875.</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>L = <cite>Language and the Study of Language</cite>, London 1868.</p> - -<p>M = <cite>Max Müller and the Science of Language</cite>, New York 1892.</p> - -<p>OLS = <cite>Oriental and Linguistic Studies</cite>, New York 1873-4.</p></div> - -<p>Wundt S = W. Wundt, <cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Die Sprache</cite>, Leipzig 1900.</p></div> - - - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_16" id="Page_16">[16]</a></span></p> - - - - -<h2><a name="PHONETIC_SYMBOLS" id="PHONETIC_SYMBOLS">PHONETIC SYMBOLS</a></h2> - - -<p> -' stands before the stressed syllable.<br /> -<br /> -· indicates length of the preceding sound.<br /> -</p> - -<p> -[a·] as in <i>a</i>lms.<br /> -[ai] as in <i>i</i>ce.<br /> -[au] as in h<i>ou</i>se.<br /> -[æ] as in h<i>a</i>t.<br /> -[ei] as in h<i>a</i>te.<br /> -[ɛ] as in c<i>a</i>re; Fr. t<i>e</i>l.<br /> -[ə] indistinct vowels.<br /> -[i] as in f<i>i</i>ll; Fr. qu<i>i</i>.<br /> -[i·] as in f<i>ee</i>l; Fr. f<i>i</i>lle.<br /> -[o] as in Fr. s<i>eau</i>.<br /> -[ou] as in s<i>o</i>.<br /> -[ɔ] open <i>o</i>-sounds.<br /> -[u] as in f<i>u</i>ll; Fr. f<i>ou</i>.<br /> -[u·] as in f<i>oor</i>l; Fr. ép<i>ou</i>se.<br /> -[y] as in Fr. v<i>u</i>.<br /> -[ʌ] as in c<i>u</i>t.<br /> -[ø] as in Fr. f<i>eu</i>.<br /> -[œ] as in Fr. s<i>œu</i>r.<br /> -[~] French nasalization.<br /> -[c] as in G. i<i>ch</i>.<br /> -[x] as in G., Sc. lo<i>ch</i>.<br /> -[ð] as in <i>th</i>is.<br /> -[j] as in <i>y</i>ou.<br /> -[þ] as in <i>th</i>ick.<br /> -[ʃ] as in <i>sh</i>e.<br /> -[ʒ] as in mea<i>s</i>ure.<br /> -[’] in Russian palatalization, in Danish glottal stop.<br /> -</p> - - -<div class="chapter"> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_17" id="Page_17">[17]</a></span></p> - - - -<h2 class="nobreak"><a name="BOOK_I" id="BOOK_I"><span class="smaller"><i>BOOK I</i></span></a><br /> - -HISTORY OF LINGUISTIC SCIENCE</h2> - - - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_19" id="Page_19">[19]</a></span></p> - - - - - -<h3 class="nobreak"><a name="CHAPTER_I" id="CHAPTER_I"><span class="smaller">CHAPTER I</span></a><br /> - -BEFORE 1800</h3> -</div> - -<div class="blockquot chaptersummary"> - -<p>§ 1. Antiquity. § 2. Middle Ages and Renaissance. § 3. Eighteenth-century -Speculation. Herder. § 4. Jenisch.</p></div> - - -<h4>I.—§ 1. Antiquity.</h4> - -<p>The science of language began, tentatively and approximately, -when the minds of men first turned to problems like these: How -is it that people do not speak everywhere the same language? -How were words first created? What is the relation between a -name and the thing it stands for? Why is such and such a person, -or such and such a thing, called <em>this</em> and not <em>that</em>? The first -answers to these questions, like primitive answers to other riddles -of the universe, were largely theological: God, or one particular -god, had created language, or God led all animals to the first man -in order that he might give them names. Thus in the Old Testament -the diversity of languages is explained as a punishment -from God for man’s crimes and presumption. These were great -and general problems, but the minds of the early Jews were also -occupied with smaller and more particular problems of language, -as when etymological interpretations were given of such personal -names as were not immediately self-explanatory.</p> - -<p>The same predilection for etymology, and a similar primitive -kind of etymology, based entirely on a more or less accidental -similarity of sound and easily satisfied with any fanciful connexion -in sense, is found abundantly in Greek writers and in their Latin -imitators. But to the speculative minds of Greek thinkers the -problem that proved most attractive was the general and abstract -one, Are words natural and necessary expressions of the notions -underlying them, or are they merely arbitrary and conventional -signs for notions that might have been equally well expressed by -any other sounds? Endless discussions were carried on about -this question, as we see particularly from Plato’s <cite>Kratylos</cite>, and -no very definite result was arrived at, nor could any be expected -so long as one language only formed the basis of the discussion—even -in our own days, after a century of comparative philology, -the question still remains an open one. In Greece, the two catchwords -<i>phúsei</i> (by nature) and <i>thései</i> (by convention) for centuries<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_20" id="Page_20">[20]</a></span> -divided philosophers and grammarians into two camps, while -some, like Sokrates in Plato’s dialogue, though admitting that -in language as actually existing there was no natural connexion -between word and thing, still wished that an ideal language might -be created in which words and things would be tied together in -a perfectly rational way—thus paving the way for Bishop Wilkins -and other modern constructors of philosophical languages.</p> - -<p>Such abstract and <i>a priori</i> speculations, however stimulating -and clever, hardly deserve the name of science, as this term is -understood nowadays. Science presupposes careful observation -and systematic classification of facts, and of that in the old Greek -writers on language we find very little. The earliest masters in -linguistic observation and classification were the old Indian grammarians. -The language of the old sacred hymns had become in -many points obsolete, but religion required that not one iota of -these revered texts should be altered, and a scrupulous oral tradition -kept them unchanged from generation to generation in every -minute particular. This led to a wonderfully exact analysis of -speech sounds, in which every detail of articulation was carefully -described, and to a no less admirable analysis of grammatical -forms, which were arranged systematically and described in a -concise and highly ingenious, though artificial, terminology. The -whole manner of treatment was entirely different from the methods -of Western grammarians, and when the works of Panini and other -Sanskrit grammarians were first made known to Europeans in -the nineteenth century, they profoundly influenced our own linguistic -science, as witnessed, among other things, by the fact that -some of the Indian technical terms are still extensively used, for -instance those describing various kinds of compound nouns.</p> - -<p>In Europe grammatical science was slowly and laboriously -developed in Greece and later in Rome. Aristotle laid the foundation -of the division of words into “parts of speech” and introduced -the notion of case (<i>ptôsis</i>). His work in this connexion was -continued by the Stoics, many of whose grammatical distinctions -and terms are still in use, the latter in their Latin dress, which -embodies some curious mistakes, as when <i>genikḗ</i>, “the case of kind -or species,” was rendered <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">genitivus</i>, as if it meant “the case of -origin,” or, worse still, when <i>aitiatikḗ</i>, “the case of object,” was -rendered <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">accusativus</i>, as if from <i>aitiáomai</i>, ‘I accuse.’ In later -times the philological school of Alexandria was particularly -important, the object of research being the interpretation of the -old poets, whose language was no longer instantly intelligible. -Details of flexion and of the meaning of words were described -and referred to the two categories of analogy or regularity and -anomaly or irregularity, but real insight into the nature of language<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_21" id="Page_21">[21]</a></span> -made very little progress either with the Alexandrians or with -their Roman inheritors, and etymology still remained in the -childlike stage.</p> - - -<h4>I.—§ 2. Middle Ages and Renaissance.</h4> - -<p>Nor did linguistic science advance in the Middle Ages. The -chief thing then was learning Latin as the common language of -the Church and of what little there was of civilization generally; -but Latin was not studied in a scientific spirit, and the various -vernacular languages, which one by one blossomed out into -languages of literature, even less so.</p> - -<p>The Renaissance in so far brought about a change in this, as -it widened the horizon, especially by introducing the study of -Greek. It also favoured grammatical studies through the stress -it laid on correct Latin as represented in the best period of classical -literature: it now became the ambition of humanists in all -countries to write Latin like Cicero. In the following centuries -we witness a constantly deepening interest in the various living -languages of Europe, owing to the growing importance of native -literatures and to increasing facilities of international traffic and -communication in general. The most important factor here was, -of course, the invention of printing, which rendered it incomparably -more easy than formerly to obtain the means of studying -foreign languages. It should be noted also that in those times -the prevalent theological interest made it a much more common -thing than nowadays for ordinary scholars to have some knowledge -of Hebrew as the original language of the Old Testament. -The acquaintance with a language so different in type from those -spoken in Europe in many ways stimulated the interest in linguistic -studies, though on the other hand it proved a fruitful source of -error, because the position of the Semitic family of languages -was not yet understood, and because Hebrew was thought to be -the language spoken in Paradise, and therefore imagined to be -the language from which all other languages were descended. -All kinds of fanciful similarities between Hebrew and European -languages were taken as proofs of the origin of the latter; every -imaginable permutation of sounds (or rather of letters) was looked -upon as possible so long as there was a slight connexion in the -sense of the two words compared, and however incredible it may -seem nowadays, the fact that Hebrew was written from right to -left, while we in our writing proceed from left to right, was -considered justification enough for the most violent transposition -of letters in etymological explanations. And yet all these flighty -and whimsical comparisons served perhaps in some measure to<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_22" id="Page_22">[22]</a></span> -pave the way for a more systematic treatment of etymology through -collecting vast stores of words from which sober and critical minds -might select those instances of indubitable connexion on which a -sound science of etymology could eventually be constructed.</p> - -<p>The discovery and publication of texts in the old Gothonic -(Germanic) languages, especially Wulfila’s Gothic translation of -the Bible, compared with which Old English (Anglo-Saxon), Old -German and Old Icelandic texts were of less, though by no means -of despicable, account, paved the way for historical treatment -of this important group of languages in the seventeenth and -eighteenth centuries. But on the whole, the interest in the history -of languages in those days was small, and linguistic thinkers thought -it more urgent to establish vast treasuries of languages as actually -spoken than to follow the development of any one language from -century to century. Thus we see that the great philosopher -Leibniz, who took much interest in linguistic pursuits and to whom -we owe many judicious utterances on the possibility of a universal -language, instigated Peter the Great to have vocabularies and -specimens collected of all the various languages of his vast empire. -To this initiative taken by Leibniz, and to the great personal -interest that the Empress Catherine II took in these studies, we -owe, directly or indirectly, the great repertories of all languages -then known, first Pallas’s <cite lang="la" xml:lang="la">Linguarum totius orbis vocabularia -comparativa</cite> (1786-87), then Hervas’s <cite lang="es" xml:lang="es">Catálogo de las lenguas -de las naziones conocidas</cite> (1800-5), and finally Adelung’s -<cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Mithridates oder allgemeine Sprachenkunde</cite> (1806-17). In spite -of their inevitable shortcomings, their uncritical and unequal -treatment of many languages, the preponderance of lexical over -grammatical information, and the use of biblical texts as their -sole connected illustrations, these great works exercised a mighty -influence on the linguistic thought and research of the time, and -contributed very much to the birth of the linguistic science of the -nineteenth century. It should not be forgotten, moreover, that -Hervas was one of the first to recognize the superior importance -of grammar to vocabulary for deciding questions of relationship -between languages.</p> - -<p>It will be well here to consider the manner in which languages -and the teaching of languages were generally viewed during the -centuries preceding the rise of Comparative Linguistics. The chief -language taught was Latin; the first and in many cases the only -grammar with which scholars came into contact was Latin grammar. -No wonder therefore that grammar and Latin grammar came -in the minds of most people to be synonyms. Latin grammar -played an enormous rôle in the schools, to the exclusion of many -subjects (the pupil’s own native language, science, history, etc.)<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_23" id="Page_23">[23]</a></span> -which we are now beginning to think more essential for the education -of the young. The traditional term for ‘secondary school’ -was in England ‘grammar school’ and in Denmark ‘latinskole,’ -and the reason for both expressions was obviously the same. -Here, however, we are concerned with this privileged position of -Latin grammar only in so far as it influenced the treatment of -languages in general. It did so in more ways than one.</p> - -<p>Latin was a language with a wealth of flexional forms, and -in describing other languages the same categories as were found -in Latin were applied as a matter of course, even where there was -nothing in these other languages which really corresponded to what -was found in Latin. In English and Danish grammars paradigms -of noun declension were given with such cases as accusative, dative -and ablative, in spite of the fact that no separate forms for these -cases had existed for centuries. All languages were indiscriminately -saddled with the elaborate Latin system of tenses and moods in -the verbs, and by means of such Procrustean methods the actual -facts of many languages were distorted and misrepresented. -Discriminations which had no foundation in reality were nevertheless -insisted on, while discriminations which happened to be -non-existent in Latin were apt to be overlooked. The mischief -consequent on this unfortunate method of measuring all grammar -after the pattern of Latin grammar has not even yet completely -disappeared, and it is even now difficult to find a single grammar -of any language that is not here and there influenced by the -Latin bias.</p> - -<p>Latin was chiefly taught as a written language (witness the -totally different manner in which Latin was pronounced in -the different countries, the consequence being that as early as the -sixteenth century French and English scholars were unable to -understand each other’s spoken Latin). This led to the almost -exclusive occupation with letters instead of sounds. The fact -that all language is primarily spoken and only secondarily written -down, that the real life of language is in the mouth and ear and -not in the pen and eye, was overlooked, to the detriment of a real -understanding of the essence of language and linguistic development; -and very often where the spoken form of a language was -accessible scholars contented themselves with a reading knowledge. -In spite of many efforts, some of which go back to the sixteenth -century, but which did not become really powerful till the rise -of modern phonetics in the nineteenth century, the fundamental -significance of spoken as opposed to written language has not -yet been fully appreciated by all linguists. There are still too -many writers on philological questions who have evidently never -tried to think in sounds instead of thinking in letters and symbols,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_24" id="Page_24">[24]</a></span> -and who would probably be sorely puzzled if they were to pronounce -all the forms that come so glibly to their pens. What -Sweet wrote in 1877 in the preface to his <cite>Handbook of Phonetics</cite> -is perhaps less true now than it was then, but it still contains some -elements of truth. “Many instances,” he said, “might be quoted -of the way in which important philological facts and laws have -been passed over or misrepresented through the observer’s want -of phonetic training. Schleicher’s failing to observe the Lithuanian -accents, or even to comprehend them when pointed out by -Kurschat, is a striking instance.” But there can be no doubt -that the way in which Latin has been for centuries made the -basis of all linguistic instruction is largely responsible for the -preponderance of eye-philology to ear-philology in the history of -our science.</p> - -<p>We next come to a point which to my mind is very important, -because it concerns something which has had, and has justly had, -enduring effects on the manner in which language, and especially -grammar, is viewed and taught to this day. What was the object -of teaching Latin in the Middle Ages and later? Certainly not -the purely scientific one of imparting knowledge for knowledge’s -own sake, apart from any practical use or advantage, simply in -order to widen the spiritual horizon and to obtain the joy of pure -intellectual understanding. For such a purpose some people with -scientific leanings may here and there take up the study of some -out-of-the-way African or American idiom. But the reasons for -teaching and learning Latin were not so idealistic. Latin was -not even taught and learnt solely with the purpose of opening the -doors to the old classical or to the more recent religious literature -in that language, but chiefly, and in the first instance, because -Latin was a practical and highly important means of communication -between educated people. One had to learn not only to read -Latin, but also to write Latin, if one wanted to maintain no matter -how humble a position in the republic of learning or in the hierarchy -of the Church. Consequently, grammar was not (even -primarily) the science of how words were inflected and how forms -were used by the old Romans, but chiefly and essentially the -art of inflecting words and of using the forms yourself, if you -wanted to write correct Latin. This you must say, and these -faults you must avoid—such were the lessons imparted in the -schools. Grammar was not a set of facts observed but of rules to -be observed, and of paradigms, i.e. of patterns, to be followed. -Sometimes this character of grammatical instruction is expressly -indicated in the form of the precepts given, as in such memorial -verses as this: “Tolle <i>-me</i>, <i>-mi</i>, <i>-mu</i>, <i>-mis</i>, Si declinare <i>domus</i> vis!” -In other words, grammar was <em>prescriptive</em> rather than <em>descriptive</em>.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_25" id="Page_25">[25]</a></span></p> - -<p>The current definition of grammar, therefore, was “<span lang="la" xml:lang="la">ars bene -dicendi et bene scribendi</span>,” “<span lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">l’art de bien dire et de bien écrire</span>,” -the art of speaking and writing correctly. J. C. Scaliger said, -“<span lang="la" xml:lang="la">Grammatici unus finis est recte loqui.</span>” To attain to correct -diction (‘good grammar’) and to avoid faulty diction (‘bad -grammar’), such were the two objects of grammatical teaching. -Now, the same point of view, in which the two elements of ‘art’ -and of ‘correctness’ entered so largely, was applied not only to -Latin, but to other languages as well, when the various vernaculars -came to be treated grammatically.</p> - -<p>The vocabulary, too, was treated from the same point of view. -This is especially evident in the case of the dictionaries issued by -the French and Italian Academies. They differ from dictionaries -as now usually compiled in being not collections of all and any -words their authors could get hold of within the limits of the -language concerned, but in being selections of words deserving the -recommendations of the best arbiters of taste and therefore fit -to be used in the highest literature by even the most elegant or -fastidious writers. Dictionaries thus understood were less descriptions -of actual usage than prescriptions for the best usage of -words.</p> - -<p>The normative way of viewing language is fraught with some -great dangers which can only be avoided through a comprehensive -knowledge of the historic development of languages and of -the general conditions of linguistic psychology. Otherwise, the -tendency everywhere is to draw too narrow limits for what is -allowable or correct. In many cases one form, or one construction, -only is recognized, even where two or more are found in -actual speech; the question which is to be selected as the only good -form comes to be decided too often by individual fancy or predilection, -where no scientific tests can yet be applied, and thus a form -may often be proscribed which from a less narrow point of view -might have appeared just as good as, or even better than, the -one preferred in the official grammar or dictionary. In other -instances, where two forms were recognized, the grammarian -wanted to give rules for their discrimination, and sometimes on -the basis of a totally inadequate induction he would establish -nice distinctions not really warranted by actual usage—distinctions -which subsequent generations had to learn at school with the sweat -of their brows and which were often considered most important -in spite of their intrinsic insignificance. Such unreal or half-real -subtle distinctions are the besetting sin of French grammarians -from the ‘grand siècle’ onwards, while they have played a much -less considerable part in England, where people have been on the -whole more inclined to let things slide as best they may on the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_26" id="Page_26">[26]</a></span> -‘laissez faire’ principle, and where no Academy was ever established -to regulate language. But even in English rules are not -unfrequently given in schools and in newspaper offices which are -based on narrow views and hasty generalizations. Because a -preposition at the end of a sentence may in some instances be -clumsy or unwieldy, this is no reason why a final preposition should -always and under all circumstances be considered a grave error. -But it is of course easier for the schoolmaster to give an absolute -and inviolable rule once and for all than to study carefully all -the various considerations that might render a qualification -desirable. If the ordinary books on <cite>Common Faults in Writing -and Speaking English</cite> and similar works in other languages have -not even now assimilated the teachings of Comparative and -Historic Linguistics, it is no wonder that the grammarians of the -seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, with whom we are here -concerned, should be in many ways guided by narrow and -insufficient views on what ought to determine correctness of speech.</p> - -<p>Here also the importance given to the study of Latin was -sometimes harmful; too much was settled by a reference to Latin -rules, even where the modern languages really followed rules of -their own that were opposed to those of Latin. The learning of -Latin grammar was supposed to be, and to some extent really -was, a schooling in logic, as the strict observance of the rules of -any foreign language is bound to be; but the consequence of this -was that when questions of grammatical correctness were to be -settled, too much importance was often given to purely logical -considerations, and scholars were sometimes apt to determine -what was to be called ‘logical’ in language according to whether -it was or was not in conformity with Latin usage. This disposition, -joined with the unavoidable conservatism of mankind, and more -particularly of teachers, would in many ways prove a hindrance -to natural developments in a living speech. But we must again -take up the thread of the history of linguistic theory.</p> - - -<h4>I.—§ 3. Eighteenth-century Speculation. Herder.</h4> - -<p>The problem of a natural origin of language exercised some of -the best-known thinkers of the eighteenth century. Rousseau -imagined the first men setting themselves more or less deliberately -to frame a language by an agreement similar to (or forming part -of) the <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">contrat social</i> which according to him was the basis of all -social order. There is here the obvious difficulty of imagining -how primitive men who had been previously without any speech -came to feel the want of language, and how they could agree on -what sound was to represent what idea without having already<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_27" id="Page_27">[27]</a></span> -some means of communication. Rousseau’s whole manner of -putting and of viewing the problem is evidently too crude to be -of any real importance in the history of linguistic science.</p> - -<p>Condillac is much more sensible when he tries to imagine how -a speechless man and a speechless woman might be led quite -naturally to acquire something like language, starting with instinctive -cries and violent gestures called forth by strong emotions. -Such cries would come to be associated with elementary feelings, -and new sounds might come to indicate various objects if produced -repeatedly in connexion with gestures showing what objects the -speaker wanted to call attention to. If these two first speaking -beings had as yet very little power to vary their sounds, their -child would have a more flexible tongue, and would therefore be -able to, and be impelled to, produce some new sounds, the meaning -of which his parents would guess at, and which they in their turn -would imitate; thus gradually a greater and greater number of -words would come into existence, generation after generation -working painfully to enrich and develop what had been already -acquired, until it finally became a real language.</p> - -<p>The profoundest thinker on these problems in the eighteenth -century was Johann Gottfried Herder, who, though he did little -or nothing in the way of scientific research, yet prepared the rise -of linguistic science. In his prize essay on the <cite>Origin of Language</cite> -(1772) Herder first vigorously and successfully attacks the orthodox -view of his age—a view which had been recently upheld very -emphatically by one Süssmilch—that language could not have -been invented by man, but was a direct gift from God. One of -Herder’s strongest arguments is that if language had been framed -by God and by Him instilled into the mind of man, we should -expect it to be much more logical, much more imbued with pure -reason than it is as an actual matter of fact. Much in all existing -languages is so chaotic and ill-arranged that it could not be God’s -work, but must come from the hand of man. On the other hand, -Herder does not think that language was really ‘invented’ by -man—although this was the word used by the Berlin Academy -when opening the competition in which Herder’s essay gained the -prize. Language was not deliberately framed by man, but sprang -of necessity from his innermost nature; the genesis of language -according to him is due to an impulse similar to that of the mature -embryo pressing to be born. Man, in the same way as all animals, -gives vent to his feelings in tones, but this is not enough; it is -impossible to trace the origin of human language to these emotional -cries alone. However much they may be refined and fixed, without -understanding they can never become human, conscious language. -Man differs from brute animals not in degree or in the addition of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_28" id="Page_28">[28]</a></span> -new powers, but in a totally different direction and development -of all powers. Man’s inferiority to animals in strength and sureness -of instinct is compensated by his wider sphere of attention; the -whole disposition of his mind as an unanalysable entity constitutes -the impassable barrier between him and the lower animals. Man, -then, shows conscious reflexion when among the ocean of sensations -that rush into his soul through all the senses he singles out -one wave and arrests it, as when, seeing a lamb, he looks for a distinguishing -mark and finds it in the bleating, so that next time -when he recognizes the same animal he imitates the sound of -bleating, and thereby creates a name for that animal. Thus the -lamb to him is ‘the bleater,’ and nouns are created from verbs, -whereas, according to Herder, if language had been the creation -of God it would inversely have begun with nouns, as that would -have been the logically ideal order of procedure. Another characteristic -trait of primitive languages is the crossing of various -shades of feeling and the necessity of expressing thoughts through -strong, bold metaphors, presenting the most motley picture. -“The genetic cause lies in the poverty of the human mind and -in the flowing together of the emotions of a primitive human -being.” Another consequence is the wealth of synonyms in -primitive language; “alongside of real poverty it has the most -unnecessary superfluity.”</p> - -<p>When Herder here speaks of primitive or ‘original’ languages, -he is thinking of Oriental languages, and especially of Hebrew. -“We should never forget,” says Edward Sapir,<a name="FNanchor_1_1" id="FNanchor_1_1"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_1" class="fnanchor">[1]</a> “that Herder’s -time-perspective was necessarily very different from ours. While -we unconcernedly take tens or even hundreds of thousands of -years in which to allow the products of human civilization to -develop, Herder was still compelled to operate with the less than -six thousand years that orthodoxy stingily doled out. To us the -two or three thousand years that separate our language from the -Old Testament Hebrew seems a negligible quantity, when speculating -on the origin of language in general; to Herder, however, -the Hebrew and the Greek of Homer seemed to be appreciably -nearer the oldest conditions than our vernaculars—hence his -exaggeration of their <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">ursprünglichkeit</i>.”</p> - -<p>Herder’s chief influence on the science of speech, to my mind, -is not derived directly from the ideas contained in his essay on -the actual origin of speech, but rather indirectly through the -whole of his life’s work. He had a very strong sense of the value -of everything that had grown naturally (<span lang="de" xml:lang="de">das naturwüchsige</span>); he -prepared the minds of his countrymen for the manysided recep<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_29" id="Page_29">[29]</a></span>tiveness -of the Romanticists, who translated and admired the -popular poetry of a great many countries, which had hitherto been -<i lang="la" xml:lang="la">terræ incognitæ</i>; and he was one of the first to draw attention to -the great national value of his own country’s medieval literature -and its folklore, and thus was one of the spiritual ancestors of -Grimm. He sees the close connexion that exists between language -and primitive poetry, or that kind of spontaneous singing that -characterizes the childhood or youth of mankind, and which is -totally distinct from the artificial poetry of later ages. But to -him each language is not only the instrument of literature, but -itself literature and poetry. A nation speaks its soul in the words -it uses. Herder admires his own mother-tongue, which to him -is perhaps inferior to Greek, but superior to its neighbours. The -combinations of consonants give it a certain measured pace; it -does not rush forward, but walks with the firm carriage of a -German. The nice gradation of vowels mitigates the force of -the consonants, and the numerous spirants make the German -speech pleasant and endearing. Its syllables are rich and firm, -its phrases are stately, and its idiomatic expressions are emphatic -and serious. Still in some ways the present German language is -degenerate if compared with that of Luther, and still more with -that of the Suabian Emperors, and much therefore remains to be -done in the way of disinterring and revivifying the powerful -expressions now lost. Through ideas like these Herder not only -exercised a strong influence on Goethe and the Romanticists, -but also gave impulses to the linguistic studies of the following -generation, and caused many younger men to turn from the -well-worn classics to fields of research previously neglected.</p> - - -<h4>I.—§ 4. Jenisch.</h4> - -<p>Where questions of correct language or of the best usage are -dealt with, or where different languages are compared with regard -to their efficiency or beauty, as is done very often, though more -often in dilettante conversation or in casual remarks in literary -works than in scientific linguistic disquisitions, it is no far cry to -the question, What would an ideal language be like? But such -is the matter-of-factness of modern scientific thought, that probably -no scientific Academy in our own days would think of doing what -the Berlin Academy did in 1794 when it offered a prize for the -best essay on the ideal of a perfect language and a comparison of -the best-known languages of Europe as tested by the standard -of such an ideal. A Berlin pastor, D. Jenisch, won the prize, and -in 1796 brought out his book under the title <cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Philosophisch-kritische -vergleichung und würdigung von vierzehn ältern und neuern sprachen<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_30" id="Page_30">[30]</a></span> -Europens</cite>—a book which is even now well worth reading, the -more so because its subject has been all but completely neglected -in the hundred and twenty years that have since intervened. In -the Introduction the author has the following passage, which -might be taken as the motto of Wilhelm v. Humboldt, Steinthal, -Finck and Byrne, who do not, however, seem to have been -inspired by Jenisch: “In language the whole intellectual and -moral essence of a man is to some extent revealed. ‘Speak, and -you are’ is rightly said by the Oriental. The language of the -natural man is savage and rude, that of the cultured man is elegant -and polished. As the Greek was subtle in thought and sensuously -refined in feeling—as the Roman was serious and practical rather -than speculative—as the Frenchman is popular and sociable—as -the Briton is profound and the German philosophic—so are -also the languages of each of these nations.”</p> - -<p>Jenisch then goes on to say that language as the organ for -communicating our ideas and feelings accomplishes its end if it -represents idea and feeling according to the actual want or need -of the mind at the given moment. We have to examine in each -case the following essential qualities of the languages compared, -(1) richness, (2) energy or emphasis, (3) clearness, and (4) euphony. -Under the head of richness we are concerned not only with the -number of words, first for material objects, then for spiritual and -abstract notions, but also with the ease with which new words -can be formed (<span lang="de" xml:lang="de">lexikalische bildsamkeit</span>). The energy of a language -is shown in its lexicon and in its grammar (simplicity of grammatical -structure, absence of articles, etc.), but also in “the characteristic -energy of the nation and its original writers.” Clearness and -definiteness in the same way are shown in vocabulary and grammar, -especially in a regular and natural syntax. Euphony, finally, -depends not only on the selection of consonants and vowels -utilized in the language, but on their harmonious combination, the -general impression of the language being more important than any -details capable of being analysed.</p> - -<p>These, then, are the criteria by which Greek and Latin and a -number of living languages are compared and judged. The author -displays great learning and a sound practical knowledge of many -languages, and his remarks on the advantages and shortcomings -of these are on the whole judicious, though often perhaps too much -stress is laid on the literary merits of great writers, which have -really no intrinsic connexion with the value of a language as such. -It depends to a great extent on accidental circumstances whether -a language has been or has not been used in elevated literature, -and its merits should be estimated, so far as this is possible, independently -of the perfection of its literature. Jenisch’s prejudice<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_31" id="Page_31">[31]</a></span> -in that respect is shown, for instance, when he says (p. 36) that -the endeavours of Hickes are entirely futile, when he tries to make -out regular declensions and conjugations in the barbarous language -of Wulfila’s translation of the Bible. But otherwise Jenisch is -singularly free from prejudices, as shown by a great number of -passages in which other languages are praised at the expense of -his own. Thus, on p. 396, he declares German to be the most -repellent contrast to that most supple modern language, French, -on account of its unnatural word-order, its eternally trailing -article, its want of participial constructions, and its interminable -auxiliaries (as in ‘<span lang="de" xml:lang="de">ich werde geliebt werden, ich würde geliebt -worden sein</span>,’ etc.), with the frequent separation of these auxiliaries -from the main verb through extraneous intermediate words, all -of which gives to German something incredibly awkward, which -to the reader appears as lengthy and diffuse and to the writer as -inconvenient and intractable. It is not often that we find an -author appraising his own language with such severe impartiality, -and I have given the passage also to show what kind of problems -confront the man who wishes to compare the relative value of -languages as wholes. Jenisch’s view here forms a striking contrast -to Herder’s appreciation of their common mother-tongue.</p> - -<p>Jenisch’s book does not seem to have been widely read by -nineteenth-century scholars, who took up totally different problems. -Those few who read it were perhaps inclined to say with S. Lefmann -(see his book on Franz Bopp, Nachtrag, 1897, p. xi) that it is difficult -to decide which was the greater fool, the one who put this -problem or the one who tried to answer it. This attitude, however, -towards problems of valuation in the matter of languages is -neither just nor wise, though it is perhaps easy to see how students -of comparative grammar were by the very nature of their study -led to look down upon those who compared languages from the -point of view of æsthetic or literary merits. Anyhow, it seems to -me no small merit to have been the first to treat such problems -as these, which are generally answered in an off-hand way -according to a loose general judgement, so as to put them on a -scientific footing by examining in detail what it is that makes us -more or less instinctively prefer one language, or one turn or expression -in a language, and thus lay the foundation of that inductive -æsthetic theory of language which has still to be developed in a -truly scientific spirit.</p> - - -<div class="chapter"> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_32" id="Page_32">[32]</a></span></p> - - - - -<h3 class="nobreak"><a name="CHAPTER_II" id="CHAPTER_II">CHAPTER II</a><br /> - -<span class="larger">BEGINNING OF NINETEENTH CENTURY</span></h3> -</div> - -<div class="blockquot chaptersummary"> - -<p>§ 1. Introduction. Sanskrit. § 2. Friedrich von Schlegel. § 3. Rasmus -Rask. § 4. Jacob Grimm. § 5. The Sound Shift. § 6. Franz Bopp. -§ 7. Bopp continued. § 8. Wilhelm von Humboldt. § 9. Grimm -once more.</p></div> - - -<h4>II.—§ 1. Introduction. Sanskrit.</h4> - -<p>The nineteenth century witnessed an enormous growth and -development of the science of language, which in some respects -came to present features totally unknown to previous centuries. -The horizon was widened; more and more languages were described, -studied and examined, many of them for their own sake, as they -had no important literature. Everywhere a deeper insight was -gained into the structures even of such languages as had been -for centuries objects of study; a more comprehensive and more -incisive classification of languages was obtained with a deeper -understanding of their mutual relationships, and at the same time -linguistic forms were not only described and analysed, but also -explained, their genesis being traced as far back as historical -evidence allowed, if not sometimes further. Instead of contenting -itself with stating when and where a form existed and how it looked -and was employed, linguistic science now also began to ask why -it had taken that definite shape, and thus passed from a purely -descriptive to an explanatory science.</p> - -<p>The chief innovation of the beginning of the nineteenth century -was the historical point of view. On the whole, it must be said -that it was reserved for that century to apply the notion of history -to other things than wars and the vicissitudes of dynasties, and -thus to discover the idea of development or evolution as pervading -the whole universe. This brought about a vast change in the -science of language, as in other sciences. Instead of looking at such -a language as Latin as one fixed point, and instead of aiming at -fixing another language, such as French, in one classical form, -the new science viewed both as being in constant flux, as growing, -as moving, as continually changing. It cried aloud like Heraclitus<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_33" id="Page_33">[33]</a></span> -“Pánta reî,” and like Galileo “<span lang="it" xml:lang="it">Eppur si muove</span>.” And lo! the -better this historical point of view was applied, the more secrets -languages seemed to unveil, and the more light seemed also to be -thrown on objects outside the proper sphere of language, such as -ethnology and the early history of mankind at large and of -particular countries.</p> - -<p>It is often said that it was the discovery of Sanskrit that was -the real turning-point in the history of linguistics, and there is -some truth in this assertion, though we shall see on the one hand -that Sanskrit was not in itself enough to give to those who studied -it the true insight into the essence of language and linguistic science, -and on the other hand that real genius enabled at least one man -to grasp essential truths about the relationships and development -of languages even without a knowledge of Sanskrit. Still, it must -be said that the first acquaintance with this language gave a mighty -impulse to linguistic studies and exerted a lasting influence on -the way in which most European languages were viewed by scholars, -and it will therefore be necessary here briefly to sketch the history -of these studies. India was very little known in Europe till the -mighty struggle between the French and the English for the mastery -of its wealth excited a wide interest also in its ancient culture. -It was but natural that on this intellectual domain, too, the French -and the English should at first be rivals and that we should find -both nations represented in the pioneers of Sanskrit scholarship. -The French Jesuit missionary Cœurdoux as early as 1767 sent to -the French Institut a memoir in which he called attention to the -similarity of many Sanskrit words with Latin, and even compared -the flexion of the present indicative and subjunctive of Sanskrit -<i>asmi</i>, ‘I am,’ with the corresponding forms of Latin grammar. -Unfortunately, however, his work was not printed till forty years -later, when the same discovery had been announced independently -by others. The next scholar to be mentioned in this connexion -is Sir William Jones, who in 1796 uttered the following memorable -words, which have often been quoted in books on the history of -linguistics: “The Sanscrit language, whatever be its antiquity, -is of a wonderful structure; more perfect than the Greek, more -copious than the Latin and more exquisitely refined than either; -yet bearing to both of them a stronger affinity, both in the roots -of verbs and in the forms of grammar, than could possibly have -been produced by accident; so strong, indeed, that no philologer -could examine them all three without believing them to have -sprung from some common source, which, perhaps, no longer -exists. There is a similar reason, though not quite so forcible, for -supposing that both the Gothic and the Celtic ... had the same -origin with the Sanscrit; and the old Persian might be added to<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_34" id="Page_34">[34]</a></span> -the same family.” Sir W. Jones, however, did nothing to carry -out in detail the comparison thus inaugurated, and it was reserved -for younger men to follow up the clue he had given.</p> - - -<h4>II.—§ 2. Friedrich von Schlegel.</h4> - -<p>One of the books that exercised a great influence on the development -of linguistic science in the beginning of the nineteenth century -was Friedrich von Schlegel’s <cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Ueber die sprache und weisheit -der Indier</cite> (1808). Schlegel had studied Sanskrit for some years -in Paris, and in his romantic enthusiasm he hoped that the study -of the old Indian books would bring about a revolution in European -thought similar to that produced in the Renaissance through the -revival of the study of Greek. We are here concerned exclusively -with his linguistic theories, but to his mind they were inseparable -from Indian religion and philosophy, or rather religious and philosophic -poetry. He is struck by the similarity between Sanskrit -and the best-known European languages, and gives quite a number -of words from Sanskrit found with scarcely any change in German, -Greek and Latin. He repudiates the idea that these similarities -might be accidental or due to borrowings on the side of the Indians, -saying expressly that the proof of original relationship between -these languages, as well as of the greater age of Sanskrit, lies -in the far-reaching correspondences in the whole grammatical -structure of these as opposed to many other languages. In this -connexion it is noticeable that he is the first to speak of ‘comparative -grammar’ (p. 28), but, like Moses, he only looks into this -promised land without entering it. Indeed, his method of comparison -precludes him from being the founder of the new science, for -he says himself (p. 6) that he will refrain from stating any rules -for change or substitution of letters (sounds), and require complete -identity of the words used as proofs of the descent of languages. -He adds that in other cases, “where intermediate stages are historically -demonstrable, we may derive <i lang="it" xml:lang="it">giorno</i> from <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">dies</i>, and when -Spanish so often has <i>h</i> for Latin <i>f</i>, or Latin <i>p</i> very often becomes <i>f</i> -in the German form of the same word, and <i>c</i> not rarely becomes <i>h</i> -[by the way, an interesting foreshadowing of one part of the discovery -of the Germanic sound-shifting], then this may be the -foundation of analogical conclusions with regard to other less -evident instances.” If he had followed up this idea by establishing -similar ‘sound-laws,’ as we now say, between Sanskrit and other -languages, he would have been many years ahead of his time; -as it is, his comparisons are those of a dilettante, and he sometimes -falls into the pitfalls of accidental similarities while overlooking -the real correspondences. He is also led astray by the idea of a<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_35" id="Page_35">[35]</a></span> -particularly close relationship between Persian and German, an -idea which at that time was widely spread<a name="FNanchor_2_2" id="FNanchor_2_2"></a><a href="#Footnote_2_2" class="fnanchor">[2]</a>—we find it in Jenisch -and even in Bopp’s first book.</p> - -<p>Schlegel is not afraid of surveying the whole world of human -languages; he divides them into two classes, one comprising -Sanskrit and its congeners, and the second all other languages. -In the former he finds organic growth of the roots as shown by -their capability of inner change or, as he terms it, ‘flexion,’ while -in the latter class everything is effected by the addition of affixes -(prefixes and suffixes). In Greek he admits that it would be -possible to believe in the possibility of the grammatical endings -(<span lang="de" xml:lang="de">bildungssylben</span>) having arisen from particles and auxiliary -words amalgamated into the word itself, but in Sanskrit even -the last semblance of this possibility disappears, and it becomes -necessary to confess that the structure of the language is formed -in a thoroughly organic way through flexion, i.e. inner changes -and modifications of the radical sound, and not composed merely -mechanically by the addition of words and particles. He admits, -however, that affixes in some other languages have brought about -something that resembles real flexion. On the whole he finds that -the movement of grammatical art and perfection (<span lang="de" xml:lang="de">der gang der -bloss grammatischen kunst und ausbildung</span>, p. 56) goes in opposite -directions in the two species of languages. In the organic languages, -which represent the highest state, the beauty and art of their -structure is apt to be lost through indolence; and German as well -as Romanic and modern Indian languages show this degeneracy -when compared with the earlier forms of the same languages. -In the affix languages, on the other hand, we see that the beginnings -are completely artless, but the ‘art’ in them grows more and more -perfect the more the affixes are fused with the main word.</p> - -<p>As to the question of the ultimate origin of language, Schlegel -thinks that the diversity of linguistic structure points to different -beginnings. While some languages, such as Manchu, are so interwoven -with onomatopœia that imitation of natural sounds must -have played the greatest rôle in their formation, this is by no -means the case in other languages, and the perfection of the oldest -organic or flexional languages, such as Sanskrit, shows that they -cannot be derived from merely animal sounds; indeed, they form an -additional proof, if any such were needed, that men did not everywhere -start from a brutish state, but that the clearest and intensest -reason existed from the very first beginning. On all these points -Schlegel’s ideas foreshadow views that are found in later works; -and it is probable that his fame as a writer outside the philological -field gave to his linguistic speculations a notoriety which his often<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_36" id="Page_36">[36]</a></span> -loose and superficial reasonings would not otherwise have acquired -for them.</p> - -<p>Schlegel’s bipartition of the languages of the world carries -in it the germ of a tripartition. On the lowest stage of his second -class he places Chinese, in which, as he acknowledges, the particles -denoting secondary sense modifications consist in monosyllables -that are completely independent of the actual word. It is clear that -from Schlegel’s own point of view we cannot here properly speak -of ‘affixes,’ and thus Chinese really, though Schlegel himself does -not say so, falls outside his affix languages and forms a class by -itself. On the other hand, his arguments for reckoning Semitic -languages among affix languages are very weak, and he seems -also somewhat inclined to say that much in their structure resembles -real flexion. If we introduce these two changes into his -system, we arrive at the threefold division found in slightly different -shapes in most subsequent works on general linguistics, the first -to give it being perhaps Schlegel’s brother, A. W. Schlegel, who -speaks of (1) <span lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">les langues sans aucune structure grammaticale</span>—under -which misleading term he understands Chinese with its -unchangeable monosyllabic words; (2) <span lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">les langues qui emploient -des affixes</span>; (3) <span lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">les langues à inflexions</span>.</p> - -<p>Like his brother, A. W. Schlegel places the flexional languages -highest and thinks them alone ‘organic.’ On the other hand, he -subdivides flexional languages into two classes, synthetic and -analytic, the latter using personal pronouns and auxiliaries in -the conjugation of verbs, prepositions to supply the want of -cases, and adverbs to express the degrees of comparison. While -the origin of the synthetic languages loses itself in the darkness -of ages, the analytic languages have been created in modern times; -all those that we know are due to the decomposition of synthetic -languages. These remarks on the division of languages are found -in the Introduction to the book <cite lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Observations sur la langue et -la littérature provençale</cite> (1818) and are thus primarily meant to -account for the contrast between synthetic Latin and analytic -Romanic.</p> - - -<h4>II.—§ 3. Rasmus Rask.</h4> - -<p>We now come to the three greatest names among the initiators -of linguistic science in the beginning of the nineteenth century. -If we give them in their alphabetical order, Bopp, Grimm and -Rask, we also give them in the order of merit in which most subsequent -historians have placed them. The works that constitute -their first claims to the title of founder of the new science came -in close succession, Bopp’s <cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Conjugationssystem</cite> in 1816, Rask’s -<cite lang="da" xml:lang="da">Undersøgelse</cite> in 1818, and the first volume of Grimm’s <cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Grammatik</cite> in<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_37" id="Page_37">[37]</a></span> -1819. While Bopp is entirely independent of the two others, we -shall see that Grimm was deeply influenced by Rask, and as the -latter’s contributions to our science began some years before his -chief work just mentioned (which had also been finished in manuscript -in 1814, thus two years before Bopp’s <cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Conjugationssystem</cite>), -the best order in which to deal with the three men will perhaps -be to take Rask first, then to mention Grimm, who in some ways -was his pupil, and finally to treat of Bopp: in this way we shall -also be enabled to see Bopp in close relation with the subsequent -development of Comparative Grammar, on which he, and not -Rask, exerted the strongest influence.</p> - -<p>Born in a peasant’s hut in the heart of Denmark in 1787, Rasmus -Rask was a grammarian from his boyhood. When a copy of the -<cite lang="is" xml:lang="is">Heimskringla</cite> was given him as a school prize, he at once, without -any grammar or dictionary, set about establishing paradigms, and -so, before he left school, acquired proficiency in Icelandic, as well -as in many other languages. At the University of Copenhagen -he continued in the same course, constantly widened his linguistic -horizon and penetrated into the grammatical structure of the -most diverse languages. Icelandic (Old Norse), however, remained -his favourite study, and it filled him with enthusiasm and national -pride that “our ancestors had such an excellent language,” the -excellency being measured chiefly by the full flexional system which -Icelandic shared with the classical tongues, partly also by the -pure, unmixed state of the Icelandic vocabulary. His first book -(1811) was an Icelandic grammar, an admirable production when -we consider the meagre work done previously in this field. With -great lucidity he reduces the intricate forms of the language into -a consistent system, and his penetrating insight into the essence -of language is seen when he explains the vowel changes, which we -now comprise under the name of mutation or umlaut, as due to -the approximation of the vowel of the stem to that of the ending, -at that time a totally new point of view. This we gather from -Grimm’s review, in which Rask’s explanation is said to be “more -astute than true” (“<span lang="de" xml:lang="de">mehr scharfsinnig als wahr</span>,” <cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Kleinere schriften</cite>, -7. 515). Rask even sees the reason of the change in the plural -<i lang="is" xml:lang="is">blöð</i> as against the singular <i lang="is" xml:lang="is">blað</i> in the former having once ended -in <i>-u</i>, which has since disappeared. This is, so far as I know, the -first inference ever drawn to a prehistoric state of language.</p> - -<p>In 1814, during a prolonged stay in Iceland, Rask sent down -to Copenhagen his most important work, the prize essay on the -origin of the Old Norse language (<cite lang="da" xml:lang="da">Undersøgelse om det gamle -nordiske eller islandske sprogs oprindelse</cite>) which for various -reasons was not printed till 1818. If it had been published when -it was finished, and especially if it had been printed in a language<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_38" id="Page_38">[38]</a></span> -better known than Danish, Rask might well have been styled the -founder of the modern science of language, for his work contains -the best exposition of the true method of linguistic research -written in the first half of the nineteenth century and applies -this method to the solution of a long series of important questions. -Only one part of it was ever translated into another language, -and this was unfortunately buried in an appendix to Vater’s -<cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Vergleichungstafeln</cite>, 1822. Yet Rask’s work even now repays -careful perusal, and I shall therefore give a brief résumé of its -principal contents.</p> - -<p>Language according to Rask is our principal means of finding -out anything about the history of nations before the existence of -written documents, for though everything may change in religion, -customs, laws and institutions, language generally remains, if not -unchanged, yet recognizable even after thousands of years. But -in order to find out anything about the relationship of a language -we must proceed methodically and examine its whole structure -instead of comparing mere details; what is here of prime importance -is the grammatical system, because words are very often taken -over from one language to another, but very rarely grammatical -forms. The capital error in most of what has been written on -this subject is that this important point has been overlooked. -That language which has the most complicated grammar is nearest -to the source; however mixed a language may be, it belongs to -the same family as another if it has the most essential, most -material and indispensable words in common with it; pronouns -and numerals are in this respect most decisive. If in such words -there are so many points of agreement between two languages that -it is possible to frame rules for the transitions of letters (in other -passages Rask more correctly says sounds) from the one language -to the other, there is a fundamental kinship between the two -languages, more particularly if there are corresponding similarities -in their structure and constitution. This is a most important -thesis, and Rask supplements it by saying that transitions of -sounds are naturally dependent on their organ and manner of -production.</p> - -<p>Next Rask proceeds to apply these principles to his task of -finding out the origin of the Old Icelandic language. He describes -its position in the ‘Gothic’ (Gothonic, Germanic) group and -then looks round to find congeners elsewhere. He rapidly discards -Greenlandic and Basque as being too remote in grammar and -vocabulary; with regard to Keltic languages he hesitates, but -finally decides in favour of denying relationship. (He was soon -to see his error in this; see below.) Next he deals at some length -with Finnic and Lapp, and comes to the conclusion that the simi<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_39" id="Page_39">[39]</a></span>larities -are due to loans rather than to original kinship. But when -he comes to the Slavonic languages his utterances have a different -ring, for he is here able to disclose so many similarities in fundamentals -that he ranges these languages within the same great -family as Icelandic. The same is true with regard to Lithuanian -and Lettic, which are here for the first time correctly placed as -an independent sub-family, though closely akin to Slavonic. The -comparisons with Latin, and especially with Greek, are even more -detailed; and Rask in these chapters really presents us with a succinct, -but on the whole marvellously correct, comparative grammar -of Gothonic, Slavonic, Lithuanian, Latin and Greek, besides examining -numerous lexical correspondences. He does not yet know any -of the related Asiatic languages, but throws out the hint that -Persian and Indian may be the remote source of Icelandic through -Greek. Greek he considers to be the ‘source’ or ‘root’ of the -Gothonic languages, though he expresses himself with a degree of -uncertainty which forestalls the correct notion that these languages -have all of them sprung from the same extinct and unknown -language. This view is very clearly expressed in a letter he wrote -from St. Petersburg in the same year in which his <cite lang="da" xml:lang="da">Undersøgelse</cite> -was published; he here says: “I divide our family of languages -in this way: the Indian (Dekanic, Hindostanic), Iranic (Persian, -Armenian, Ossetic), Thracian (Greek and Latin), Sarmatian -(Lettic and Slavonic), Gothic (Germanic and Skandinavian) -and Keltic (Britannic and Gaelic) tribes” (SA 2. 281, dated -June 11, 1818).</p> - -<p>This is the fullest and clearest account of the relationships -of our family of languages found for many years, and Rask showed -true genius in the way in which he saw what languages belonged -together and how they were related. About the same time he gave -a classification of the Finno-Ugrian family of languages which is -pronounced by such living authorities on these languages as Vilhelm -Thomsen and Emil Setälä to be superior to most later attempts. -When travelling in India he recognized the true position of Zend, -about which previous scholars had held the most erroneous views, -and his survey of the languages of India and Persia was thought -valuable enough in 1863 to be printed from his manuscript, forty -years after it was written. He was also the first to see that the -Dravidian (by him called Malabaric) languages were totally different -from Sanskrit. In his short essay on Zend (1826) he also incidentally -gave the correct value of two letters in the first cuneiform -writing, and thus made an important contribution towards -the final deciphering of these inscriptions.</p> - -<p>His long tour (1816-23) through Sweden, Finland, Russia, -the Caucasus, Persia and India was spent in the most intense study<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_40" id="Page_40">[40]</a></span> -of a great variety of languages, but unfortunately brought on the -illness and disappointments which, together with economic anxieties, -marred the rest of his short life.</p> - -<p>When Rask died in 1832 he had written a great number of -grammars of single languages, all of them remarkable for their -accuracy in details and clear systematic treatment, more particularly -of morphology, and some of them breaking new ground; -besides his Icelandic grammar already mentioned, his Anglo-Saxon, -Frisian and Lapp grammars should be specially named. Historical -grammar in the strict sense is perhaps not his forte, though in a -remarkable essay of the year 1815 he explains historically a great -many features of Danish grammar, and in his Spanish and Italian -grammars he in some respects forestalls Diez’s historical explanations. -But in some points he stuck to erroneous views, a notable -instance being his system of old Gothonic ‘long vowels,’ which -was reared on the assumption that modern Icelandic pronunciation -reflects the pronunciation of primitive times, while it is really a -recent development, as Grimm saw from a comparison of all the -old languages. With regard to consonants, however, Rask was -the clearer-sighted of the two, and throughout he had this immense -advantage over most of the comparative linguists of his age, that -he had studied a great many languages at first hand with native -speakers, while the others knew languages chiefly or exclusively -through the medium of books and manuscripts. In no work of -that period, or even of a much later time, are found so many first-hand -observations of living speech as in Rask’s <cite lang="da" xml:lang="da">Retskrivningslære</cite>. -Handicapped though he was in many ways, by poverty and illness -and by the fact that he wrote in a language so little known as -Danish, Rasmus Rask, through his wide outlook, his critical -sagacity and aversion to all fanciful theorizing, stands out as -one of the foremost leaders of linguistic science.<a name="FNanchor_3_3" id="FNanchor_3_3"></a><a href="#Footnote_3_3" class="fnanchor">[3]</a></p> - - -<h4>II.—§ 4. Jacob Grimm.</h4> - -<p>Jacob Grimm’s career was totally different from Rask’s. Born -in 1785 as the son of a lawyer, he himself studied law and came -under the influence of Savigny, whose view of legal institutions as -the outcome of gradual development in intimate connexion with -popular tradition and the whole intellectual and moral life of the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_41" id="Page_41">[41]</a></span> -people appealed strongly to the young man’s imagination. But -he was drawn even more to that study of old German popular -poetry which then began to be the fashion, thanks to Tieck and -other Romanticists; and when he was in Paris to assist Savigny -with his historico-legal research, the old German manuscripts in -the Bibliothèque nationale nourished his enthusiasm for the -poetical treasures of the Middle Ages. He became a librarian -and brought out his first book, <cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Ueber den altdeutschen meistergesang</cite> -(1811). At the same time, with his brother Wilhelm as constant -companion and fellow-worker, he began collecting popular traditions, -of which he published a first instalment in his famous <cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Kinder- -und hausmärchen</cite> (1812 ff.), a work whose learned notes and comparisons -may be said to have laid the foundation of the science of -folklore. Language at first had only a subordinate interest to -him, and when he tried his hand at etymology, he indulged in the -wildest guesses, according to the method (or want of method) of -previous centuries. A. W. Schlegel’s criticism of his early attempts -in this field, and still more Rask’s example, opened Grimm’s eyes -to the necessity of a stricter method, and he soon threw himself -with great energy into a painstaking and exact study of the oldest -stages of the German language and its congeners. In his review -(1812) of Rask’s Icelandic grammar he writes: “Each individuality, -even in the world of languages, should be respected as sacred; -it is desirable that even the smallest and most despised dialect -should be left only to itself and to its own nature and in nowise -subjected to violence, because it is sure to have some secret advantages -over the greatest and most highly valued language.” Here -we meet with that valuation of the hitherto overlooked popular -dialects which sprang from the Romanticists’ interest in the -‘people’ and everything it had produced. Much valuable -linguistic work was directly inspired by this feeling and by conscious -opposition to the old philology, that occupied itself exclusively -with the two classical languages and the upper-class -literature embodied in them. As Scherer expresses it (<cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Jacob -Grimm</cite>, 2te ausg., Berlin, 1885, p. 152): “The brothers Grimm -applied to the old national literature and to popular traditions -the old philological virtue of exactitude, which had up to then -been bestowed solely on Greek and Roman classics and on the Bible. -They extended the field of strict philology, as they extended the -field of recognized poetry. They discarded the aristocratic narrowmindedness -with which philologists looked down on unwritten -tradition, on popular ballads, legends, fairy tales, superstition, -nursery rimes.... In the hands of the two Grimms philology -became national and popular; and at the same time a pattern was -created for the scientific study of all the peoples of the earth and<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_42" id="Page_42">[42]</a></span> -for a comparative investigation of the entire mental life of -mankind, of which written literature is nothing but a small -epitome.”</p> - -<p>But though Grimm thus broke loose from the traditions of -classical philology, he still carried with him one relic of it, namely -the standard by which the merits of different languages were -measured. “In reading carefully the old Gothonic (<span lang="de" xml:lang="de">altdeutschen</span>) -sources, I was every day discovering forms and perfections which -we generally envy the Greeks and Romans when we consider the -present condition of our language.”... “Six hundred years ago -every rustic knew, that is to say practised daily, perfections and -niceties in the German language of which the best grammarians -nowadays do not even dream; in the poetry of Wolfram von -Eschenbach and of Hartmann von Aue, who had never heard of -declension and conjugation, nay who perhaps did not even know -how to read and write, many differences in the flexion and use of -nouns and verbs are still nicely and unerringly observed, which -we have gradually to rediscover in learned guise, but dare not -reintroduce, for language ever follows its inalterable course.”</p> - -<p>Grimm then sets about writing his great historical and comparative -<cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Deutsche Grammatik</cite>, taking the term ‘deutsch’ in -its widest and hardly justifiable sense of what is now ordinarily -called Germanic and which is in this work called Gothonic. The -first volume appeared in 1819, and in the preface we see that he -was quite clear that he was breaking new ground and introducing -a new method of looking at grammar. He speaks of previous -German grammars and says expressly that he does not want his -to be ranged with them. He charges them with unspeakable -pedantry; they wanted to dogmatize magisterially, while to Grimm -language, like everything natural and moral, is an unconscious -and unnoticed secret which is implanted in us in youth. Every -German therefore who speaks his language naturally, i.e. untaught, -may call himself his own living grammar and leave all schoolmasters’ -rules alone. Grimm accordingly has no wish to prescribe -anything, but to observe what has grown naturally, and very -appropriately he dedicates his work to Savigny, who has taught -him how institutions grow in the life of a nation. In the new -preface to the second edition there are also some noteworthy -indications of the changed attitude. “I am hostile to general -logical notions in grammar; they conduce apparently to strictness -and solidity of definition, but hamper observation, which I -take to be the soul of linguistic science.... As my starting-point -was to trace the never-resting (<span lang="de" xml:lang="de">unstillstehende</span>) element of our -language which changes with time and place, it became necessary -for me to admit one dialect after the other, and I could not even<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_43" id="Page_43">[43]</a></span> -forbear to glance at those foreign languages that are ultimately -related with ours.”</p> - -<p>Here we have the first clear programme of that historical -school which has since then been the dominating one in linguistics. -But as language according to this new point of view was constantly -changing and developing, so also, during these years, were Grimm’s -own ideas. And the man who then exercised the greatest influence -on him was Rasmus Rask. When Grimm wrote the first edition -of his <cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Grammatik</cite> (1819), he knew nothing of Rask but the Icelandic -grammar, but just before finishing his own volume Rask’s prize -essay reached him, and in the preface he at once speaks of it in -the highest terms of praise, as he does also in several letters of -this period; he is equally enthusiastic about Rask’s Anglo-Saxon -grammar and the Swedish edition of his Icelandic grammar, neither -of which reached him till after his own first volume had been printed -off. The consequence was that instead of going on to the second -volume, Grimm entirely recast the first volume and brought it -out in a new shape in 1822. The chief innovation was the phonology -or, as he calls it, “<span lang="de" xml:lang="de">Erstes buch. Von den buchstaben</span>,” which -was entirely absent in 1819, but now ran to 595 pages.</p> - - -<h4>II.—§ 5. The Sound Shift.</h4> - -<p>This first book in the 1822 volume contains much, perhaps -most, of what constitutes Grimm’s fame as a grammarian, notably -his exposition of the ‘sound shift’ (<span lang="de" xml:lang="de">lautverschiebung</span>), which it -has been customary in England since Max Müller to term ‘Grimm’s -Law.’ If any one man is to give his name to this law, a better name -would be ‘Rask’s Law,’ for all these transitions, Lat. Gr. <i>p</i> = <i>f</i>, -<i>t</i> = <i>þ</i> (<i>th</i>), <i>k</i> = <i>h</i>, etc., are enumerated in Rask’s <cite lang="da" xml:lang="da">Undersøgelse</cite>, -p. 168, which Grimm knew before he wrote a single word about -the sound shift.</p> - -<p>Now, it is interesting to compare the two scholars’ treatment -of these transitions. The sober-minded, matter-of-fact Rask -contents himself with a bare statement of the facts, with just enough -well-chosen examples to establish the correspondence; the way -in which he arranges the sounds shows that he saw their parallelism -clearly enough, though he did not attempt to bring everything -under one single formula, any more than he tried to explain why -these sounds had changed.<a name="FNanchor_4_4" id="FNanchor_4_4"></a><a href="#Footnote_4_4" class="fnanchor">[4]</a> Grimm multiplies the examples and<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_44" id="Page_44">[44]</a></span> -then systematizes the whole process in one formula so as to comprise -also the ‘second shift’ found in High German alone—a shift -well known to Rask, though treated by him in a different place -(p. 68 f.). Grimm’s formula looks thus:</p> - - -<div class="center"> -<table class="left" border="0" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" summary=""> -<tr><td>Greek</td><td>p</td><td>b</td><td class="bright">f</td><td>t</td><td>d</td><td class="bright">th</td><td>k</td><td>g</td><td>ch</td></tr> -<tr><td>Gothic</td><td>f</td><td>p</td><td class="bright">b</td><td>th</td><td>t</td><td class="bright">d</td><td>h</td><td>k</td><td>g</td></tr> -<tr><td>High G.</td><td>b(v)</td><td>f</td><td class="bright">p</td><td>d</td><td>z</td><td class="bright">t</td><td>g</td><td>ch</td><td>k,</td></tr> -</table></div> -<p>which may be expressed generally thus, that tenuis (T) becomes -aspirate (A) and then media (M), etc., or, tabulated:</p> - - -<div class="center"> -<table class="left" border="0" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" summary=""> -<tr><td>Greek</td><td>T</td><td>M</td><td>A</td></tr> -<tr><td>Gothic</td><td>A</td><td>T</td><td>M</td></tr> -<tr><td>High G.</td><td>M</td><td>A</td><td>T.</td></tr> -</table></div> - -<p>For this Grimm would of course have deserved great credit, -because a comprehensive formula is more scientific than a rough -statement of facts—<em>if</em> the formula had been correct; but unfortunately -it is not so. In the first place, it breaks down in the very -first instance, for there is no media in High German corresponding -to Gr. <i>p</i> and Gothic <i>f</i> (cf. <i>poûs</i>, <i>fotus</i>, <i>fuss</i>, etc.); secondly, High -German has <i>h</i> just as Gothic has, corresponding to Greek <i>k</i> (cf. -<i>kardía</i>, <i>hairto</i>, <i>herz</i>, etc.), and where it has <i>g</i>, Gothic has also <i>g</i> in -accordance with rules unknown to Grimm and not explained till -long afterwards (by Verner). But the worst thing is that the -whole specious generalization produces the impression of regularity -and uniformity only through the highly unscientific use of the -word ‘aspirate,’ which is made to cover such phonetically disparate -things as (1) combination of stop with following <i>h</i>, (2) combination -of stop with following fricative, <i>pf</i>, <i>ts</i> written <i>z</i>, (3) voiceless fricative, -<i>f</i>, <i>s</i> in G. <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">das</i>, (4) voiced fricative, <i>v</i>, <i>ð</i> written <i>th</i>, and (5) <i>h</i>. Grimm -rejoiced in his formula, giving as it does three chronological stages -in each of the three subdivisions (tenuis, media, aspirate) of each of -the three classes of consonants (labial, dental, ‘guttural’). This -evidently took hold of his fancy through the mystic power of the -number three, which he elsewhere (Gesch 1. 191, cf. 241) finds -pervading language generally: three original vowels, <i>a</i>, <i>i</i>, <i>u</i>, three -genders, three numbers (singular, dual, plural), three persons, three -‘voices’ (genera: active, middle, passive), three tenses (present, -preterit, future), three declensions through <i>a</i>, <i>i</i>, <i>u</i>. As there is -here an element of mysticism, so is there also in Grimm’s highflown<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_45" id="Page_45">[45]</a></span> -explanation of the whole process from pretended popular psychology, -which is full of the cloudiest romanticism. “When -once the language had made the first step and had rid itself of -the organic basis of its sounds, it was hardly possible for it to -escape the second step and not to arrive at the third stage,<a name="FNanchor_5_5" id="FNanchor_5_5"></a><a href="#Footnote_5_5" class="fnanchor">[5]</a> -through which this development was perfected.... It is impossible -not to admire the instinct by which the linguistic spirit (<span lang="de" xml:lang="de">sprachgeist</span>) -carried this out to the end. A great many sounds got out of joint, -but they always knew how to arrange themselves in a different -place and to find the new application of the old law. I am not -saying that the shift happened without any detriment, nay from -one point of view the sound shift appears to me as a barbarous -aberration, from which other more quiet nations abstained, but -which is connected with the violent progress and craving for freedom -which was found in Germany in the beginning of the Middle Ages -and which initiated the transformation of Europe. The Germans -pressed forward even in the matter of the innermost sounds -of their language,” etc., with remarks on intellectual progress -and on victorious and ruling races. Grimm further says that -“<span lang="de" xml:lang="de">die dritte stufe des verschobnen lauts den kreislauf abschliesse -und nach ihr ein neuer ansatz zur abweichung wieder von vorn -anheben müsse. Doch eben weil der sprachgeist seinen lauf -vollbracht hat, scheint er nicht wieder neu beginnen zu wollen</span>” -(GDS 1. 292 f., 299). It would be difficult to attach any clear ideas -to these words.</p> - -<p>Grimm’s idea of a ‘<span lang="de" xml:lang="de">kreislauf</span>’ is caused by the notion that the -two shifts, separated by several centuries, represent one continued -movement, while the High German shift of the eighth century has -really no more to do with the primitive Gothonic shift, which took -place probably some time before Christ, than has, for instance, -the Danish shift in words like <i>gribe</i>, <i>bide</i>, <i>bage</i>, from <i>gripæ</i>, <i>bitæ</i>, -<i>bakæ</i> (about 1400), or the still more recent transition in Danish -through which stressed <i>t</i> in <i>tid</i>, <i>tyve</i>, etc., sounds nearly like [ts], as -in HG. <i>zeit</i>. There cannot possibly be any causal nexus between -such transitions, separated chronologically by long periods, with -just as little change in the pronunciation of these consonants as -there has been in English.<a name="FNanchor_6_6" id="FNanchor_6_6"></a><a href="#Footnote_6_6" class="fnanchor">[6]</a></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_46" id="Page_46">[46]</a></span></p> - -<p>Grimm was anything but a phonetician, and sometimes says -things which nowadays cannot but produce a smile, as when he -says (Gr 1. 3) “in our word <i>schrift</i>, for instance, we express eight -sounds through seven signs, for <i>f</i> stands for <i>ph</i>”; thus he earnestly -believes that <i>sch</i> contains three sounds, <i>s</i> and the ‘aspirate’ -<i>ch</i> = <i>c</i> + <i>h</i>! Yet through the irony of fate it was on the history of -sounds that Grimm exercised the strongest influence. As in other -parts of his grammar, so also in the “theory of letters” he gave -fuller word lists than people had been accustomed to, and this -opened the eyes of scholars to the great regularity reigning in this -department of linguistic development. Though in his own etymological -practice he was far from the strict idea of ‘phonetic law’ -that played such a prominent rôle in later times, he thus paved the -way for it. He speaks of law at any rate in connexion with the -consonant shift, and there recognizes that it serves to curb wild -etymologies and becomes a test for them (Gesch 291). The consonant -shift thus became <em>the</em> law in linguistics, and because it -affected a great many words known to everybody, and in a new -and surprising way associated well-known Latin or Greek words -with words of one’s own mother-tongue, it became popularly the -keystone of a new wonderful science.</p> - -<p>Grimm coined several of the terms now generally used in linguistics; -thus <i>umlaut</i> and <i>ablaut</i>, ‘strong’ and ‘weak’ declensions -and conjugations. As to the first, we have seen that it was Rask -who first understood and who taught Grimm the cause of this -phenomenon, which in English has often been designated by -the German term, while Sweet calls it ‘mutation’ and others better -‘infection.’ With regard to ‘ablaut’ (Sweet: gradation, best -perhaps in English apophony), Rask termed it ‘omlyd,’ a word -which he never applied to Grimm’s ‘umlaut,’ thus keeping the two -kinds of vowel change as strictly apart as Grimm does. Apophony -was first discovered in that class of verbs which Grimm called -‘strong’; he was fascinated by the commutation of the vowels -in <i>springe</i>, <i>sprang</i>, <i>gesprungen</i>, and sees in it, as in <i>bimbambum</i>, -something mystic and admirable, characteristic of the old German -spirit. He was thus blind to the correspondences found in other -languages, and his theory led him astray in the second volume, in -which he constructed imaginary verbal roots to explain apophony -wherever it was found outside the verbs.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_47" id="Page_47">[47]</a></span></p> - -<p>Though Grimm, as we have seen, was by his principles and -whole tendency averse to prescribing laws for a language, he is -sometimes carried away by his love for mediæval German, as -when he gives as the correct nominative form <i>der boge</i>, though -everybody for centuries had said <i>der bogen</i>. In the same way -many of his followers would apply the historical method to questions -of correctness of speech, and would discard the forms evolved in -later times in favour of previously existing forms which were looked -upon as more ‘organic.’</p> - -<p>It will not be necessary here to speak of the imposing work -done by Grimm in the rest of his long life, chiefly spent as a professor -in Berlin. But in contrast to the ordinary view I must say that -what appears to me as most likely to endure is his work on syntax, -contained in the fourth volume of his grammar and in monographs. -Here his enormous learning, his close power of observation, and -his historical method stand him in good stead, and there is much -good sense and freedom from that kind of metaphysical systematism -which was triumphant in contemporaneous work on classical syntax. -His services in this field are the more interesting because he did -not himself seem to set much store by these studies and even -said that syntax was half outside the scope of grammar. This -utterance belongs to a later period than that of the birth of historical -and comparative linguistics, and we shall have to revert to it after -sketching the work of the third great founder of this science, to -whom we shall now turn.</p> - - -<h4>II.—§ 6. Franz Bopp.</h4> - -<p>The third, by some accounted the greatest, among the founders of -modern linguistic science was Franz Bopp. His life was uneventful. -At the age of twenty-one (he was born in 1791) he went to Paris -to study Oriental languages, and soon concentrated his attention -on Sanskrit. His first book, from which it is customary in Germany -to date the birth of Comparative Philology, appeared in 1816, while -he was still in Paris, under the title <cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Ueber des conjugationssystem der -sanskritsprache in vergleichung mit jenem der griechischen, lateinischen, -persischen und germanischen sprache</cite>, but the latter part of the small -volume was taken up with translations from Sanskrit, and for a -long time he was just as much a Sanskrit scholar, editing and -translating Sanskrit texts, as a comparative grammarian. He -showed himself in the latter character in several papers read before -the Berlin Academy, after he had been made a professor there in -1822, and especially in his famous <cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Vergleichende grammatik des -sanskrit, ṣend, armenischen, griechischen, lateinischen, litauischen, -altslawischen, gotischen und deutschen</cite>, the first edition of which was<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_48" id="Page_48">[48]</a></span> -published between 1833 and 1849, the second in 1857, and the -third in 1868. Bopp died in 1867.</p> - -<p>Of Bopp’s <cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Conjugationssystem</cite> a revised, rearranged and greatly -improved English translation came out in 1820 under the title -<cite>Analytical Comparison of the Sanskrit, Greek, Latin and Teutonic -Languages</cite>. This was reprinted with a good introduction by -F. Techmer in his <cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Internationale zeitschrift für allgem. sprachwissenschaft -IV</cite> (1888), and in the following remarks I shall quote this -(abbreviated AC) instead of, or alongside of, the German original -(abbreviated C).</p> - -<p>Bopp’s chief aim (and in this he was characteristically different -from Rask) was to find out the ultimate origin of grammatical -forms. He follows his quest by the aid of Sanskrit forms, though -he does not consider these as the ultimate forms themselves: “I -do not believe that the Greek, Latin, and other European languages -are to be considered as derived from the Sanskrit in the state in -which we find it in Indian books; I feel rather inclined to consider -them altogether as subsequent variations of one original tongue, -which, however, the Sanskrit has preserved more perfect than its -kindred dialects. But whilst therefore the language of the Brahmans -more frequently enables us to conjecture the primitive form -of the Greek and Latin languages than what we discover in the -oldest authors and monuments, the latter on their side also may -not unfrequently elucidate the Sanskrit grammar” (AC 3). Herein -subsequent research has certainly borne out Bopp’s view.</p> - -<p>After finding out by a comparison of the grammatical forms -of Sanskrit, Greek, etc., which of these forms were identical and -what were their oldest shapes, he tries to investigate the ultimate -origin of these forms. This he takes to be a comparatively easy -consequence of the first task, but he was here too much under the -influence of the philosophical grammar then in vogue. Gottfried -Hermann (<cite lang="la" xml:lang="la">De emendanda ratione Græcæ grammaticæ</cite>, 1801), -on purely logical grounds, distinguishes three things as necessary -elements of each sentence, the subject, the predicate, and the copula -joining the first two elements together; as the power of the verb -is to attribute the predicate to the subject, there is really only one -verb, namely the verb <i>to be</i>. Bopp’s teacher in Paris, Silvestre -de Sacy, says the same thing, and Bopp repeats: “A verb, in the -most restricted meaning of the term, is that part of speech by -which a subject is connected with its attribute. According to -this definition it would appear that there can exist only one verb, -namely, the substantive verb, in Latin <i>esse</i>; in English, <i>to be</i>.... -Languages of a structure similar to that of the Greek, Latin, etc., -can express by one verb of this kind a whole logical proposition, in -which, however, that part of speech which expresses the connexion<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_49" id="Page_49">[49]</a></span> -of the subject with its attribute, which is the characteristic function -of the verb, is generally entirely omitted or understood. The Latin -verb <i>dat</i> expresses the proposition ‘he gives,’ or ‘he is giving’: -the letter <i>t</i>, indicating the third person, is the subject, <i>da</i> expresses -the attribute of giving, and the grammatical <i>copula</i> is understood. -In the verb <i>potest</i>, the latter is expressed, and <i>potest</i> unites in itself -the three essential parts of speech, <i>t</i> being the subject, <i>es</i> the copula, -and <i>pot</i> the attribute.”</p> - -<p>Starting from this logical conception of grammar, Bopp is -inclined to find everywhere the ‘substantive verb’ <i>to be</i> in its -two Sanskrit forms <i>as</i> and <i>bhu</i> as an integral part of verbal forms. -He is not the first to think that terminations, which are now inseparable -parts of a verb, were originally independent words; thus -Horne Tooke (in <cite lang="la" xml:lang="la">Epea pteroenta</cite>, 1786, ii. 429) expressly says that -“All those common terminations in any language ... are themselves -separate words with distinct meanings,” and explains, for -instance, Latin <i>ibo</i> from <i>i</i>, ‘<i>go</i>’ + <i>b</i>, ‘<i>will</i>,’ from Greek <i>boúl(omai)</i> -+ <i>o</i> ‘<i>I</i>,’ from <i>ego</i>. Bopp’s explanations are similar to this, -though they do not imply such violent shortenings as that of <i>boúl(omai)</i> -to <i>b</i>. He finds the root Sanskrit <i>as</i>, ‘to be,’ in Latin perfects -like <i>scrip-s-i</i>, in Greek aorists like <i>e-tup-s-a</i> and in futures like <i>tup-s-o</i>. -That the same addition thus indicates different tenses does not -trouble Bopp greatly; he explains Lat. <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">fueram</i> from <i>fu</i> + <i>es</i> + <i>am</i>, -etc., and says that the root <i>fu</i> “contains, properly, nothing to indicate -past time, but the usage of language having supplied the want -of an adequate inflexion, <i>fui</i> received the sense of a perfect, and -<i>fu-eram</i>, which would be nothing more than an imperfect, that -of a pluperfect, and after the same manner <i>fu-ero</i> signifies ‘I shall -have been,’ instead of ‘I shall be’” (AC 57). All Latin verbal -endings containing <i>r</i> are thus explained as being ultimately formed -with the substantive verb (<i>ama-rem</i>, etc.); thus among others the -infinitives <i>fac-ere</i>, <i>ed-ere</i>, as well as <i>esse</i>, <i>posse</i>: “<i>E</i> is properly, in -Latin, the termination of a simple infinitive active; and the root -<i>Es</i> produced anciently <i>ese</i>, by adding <i>e</i>; the <i>s</i> having afterwards -been doubled, we have <i>esse</i>. This termination <i>e</i> answers to the -Greek infinitive in <i>ai</i>, <i>eînai</i> ...” (AC 58).</p> - -<p>If Bopp found a master-key to many of the verbal endings -in the Sanskrit root <i>es</i>, he found a key to many others in the other -root of the verb ‘to be,’ Sanskrit <i>bhu</i>. He finds it in the Latin -imperfect <i>da-bam</i>, as well as in the future <i>da-bo</i>, the relation between -which is the same as that between <i>er-am</i> and <i>er-o</i>. “<i>Bo</i>, <i>bis</i>, <i>bit</i> -has a striking similarity with the Anglo-Saxon <i>beo</i>, <i>bys</i>, <i>byth</i>, the -future tense of the verb substantive, a similarity which cannot be -considered as merely accidental.” [Here neither the form nor the -function of the Anglo-Saxon is stated quite correctly.] But<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_50" id="Page_50">[50]</a></span> -the ending in Latin <i>ama-vi</i> is also referred to the same root; for -the change of the <i>b</i> into <i>v</i> we are referred to Italian <i>amava</i>, from -Lat. <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">amabam</i>; thus also <i>fui</i> is for <i>fuvi</i> and <i>potui</i> is for <i>pot-vi</i>: -“languages manifest a constant effort to combine heterogeneous -materials in such a manner as to offer to the ear or eye one -perfect whole, like a statue executed by a skilful artist, that -wears the appearance of a figure hewn out of one piece of -marble” (AC 60).</p> - -<p>The following may be taken as a fair specimen of the method -followed in these first attempts to account for the origin of flexional -forms: “The Latin passive forms <i>amat-ur</i>, <i>amant-ur</i>, would, in -some measure, conform to this mode of joining the verb substantive, -if the <i>r</i> was also the result of a permutation of an original <i>s</i>; and -this appears not quite incredible, if we compare the second person -<i>ama-ris</i> with the third <i>amat-ur</i>. Either in one or the other there -must be a transposition of letters, to which the Latin language -is particularly addicted. If <i>ama-ris</i>, which might have been -produced from <i>ama-sis</i>, has preserved the original order of letters, -then <i>ama-tur</i> must be the transposition of <i>ama-rut</i> or <i>ama-sut</i>, -and <i>ama-ntur</i> that of <i>ama-runt</i> or <i>ama-sunt</i>. If this be the case, -the origin of the Latin passive can be accounted for, and although -differing from that of the Sanskrit, Greek, and Gothic languages, it -is not produced by the invention of a new grammatical form. -It becomes clear, also, why many verbs, with a passive form, have -an active signification; because there is no reason why the addition -of the verb substantive should necessarily produce a passive -sense. There is another way of explaining <i>ama-ris</i>, if it really -stands for <i>ama-sis</i>; the <i>s</i> may be the radical consonant of the -reflex pronoun <i>se</i>. The introduction of this pronoun would be -particularly adapted to form the middle voice, which expresses -the reflexion of the action upon the actor; but the Greek language -exemplifies the facility with which the peculiar signification of -the middle voice passes into that of the passive.” The reasoning -in the beginning of this passage (the only one contained in C) -carries us back to a pre-scientific atmosphere, of which there are -few or no traces in Rask’s writings; the latter explanation (added -in AC) was preferred by Bopp himself in later works, and was for -many years accepted as the correct one, until scholars found a -passive in <i>r</i> in Keltic, where the transition from <i>s</i> to <i>r</i> is not found -as it is in Latin; and as the closely corresponding forms in Keltic -and Italic must obviously be explained in the same way, the hypothesis -of a composition with <i>se</i> was generally abandoned. Bopp’s -partiality for the abstract verb is seen clearly when he explains -the Icelandic passive in <i>-st</i> from <i>s</i> = <i>es</i> (C 132); here Rask and -Grimm saw the correct and obvious explanation.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_51" id="Page_51">[51]</a></span></p> - -<p>Among the other explanations given first by Bopp must be -mentioned the Latin second person of the passive voice <i>-mini</i>, as -in <i>ama-mini</i>, which he takes to be the nominative masculine plural -of a participle corresponding to Greek <i>-menos</i> and found in a different -form in Lat. <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">alumnus</i> (AC 51). This explanation is still widely -accepted, though not by everybody.</p> - -<p>With regard to the preterit of what Grimm was later to term -the ‘weak’ verbs, Bopp vacillates between different explanations. -In C 118 he thinks the <i>t</i> or <i>d</i> is identical with the ending of the -participle, in which the case endings were omitted and supplanted -by personal endings; the syllable <i>ed</i> after <i>d</i> [in Gothic <i>sok-id-edum</i>; -‘Greek,’ p. 119, must be a misprint for Gothic] is nothing but an -accidental addition. But on p. 151 he sees in <i>sokidedun</i>, <i>sokidedi</i>, -a connexion of <i>sok</i> with the preterit of the verb <i>Tun</i>, as if the Germans -were to say <i>suchetaten</i>, <i>suchetäte</i>; he compares the English use -of <i>did</i> (<i>did seek</i>), and thinks the verb used is G. <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">tun</i>, Goth. <i>tanjan</i>. -The theory of composition is here restricted to those forms that -contain two <i>d’s</i>, i.e. the plural indicative and the subjunctive. In -the English edition this twofold explanation is repeated with -some additions: <i>d</i> or <i>t</i> as in Gothic <i>sok-i-da</i> and <i>oh-ta</i> originates -from a participle found in Sanskr. <i>tyak-ta</i>, <i>likh-i-ta</i>, Lat. <i>-tus</i>, Gr. -<i>-tós</i>; this suffix generally has a passive sense, but in neuter verbs -an active sense, and therefore would naturally serve to form a -preterit tense with an active signification. He finds a proof of -the connexion between this preterit and the participle in the fact -that only such verbs as have this ending in the participle form -their preterit by means of a dental, while the others (the ‘strong’ -verbs, as Grimm afterwards termed them) have a participle in <i>an</i> -and reduplication or a change of vowel in the preterit; and Bopp -compares the Greek aorist passive <i>etúphth-ēn</i>, <i>edóth-ēn</i>, which he -conceives may proceed from the participle <i>tuphth-eís</i>, <i>doth-eís</i> -(AC 37 ff.). This suggestion seems to have been commonly overlooked -or abandoned, while the other explanation, from <i>dedi</i> as -in English <i>did seek</i>, which Bopp gives p. 49 for the subjunctive and -the indicative plural, was accepted by Grimm as the explanation of all -the forms, even of those containing only one dental; in later works -Bopp agreed with Grimm and thus gave up the first part of his -original explanation. The <i>did</i> explanation had been given already -by D. von Stade (d. 1718, see Collitz, <cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Das schwache präteritum</cite>, -p. 1); Rask (P 270, not mentioned by Collitz) says: “Whence -this <i>d</i> or <i>t</i> has come is not easy to tell, as it is not found in Latin and -Greek, but as it is evident from the Icelandic grammar that it is -closely connected with the past participle and is also found in -the preterit subjunctive, it seems clear that it must have been an -old characteristic of the past tense in every mood, but was lost<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_52" id="Page_52">[52]</a></span> -in Greek when the above-mentioned participles in <i>tos</i> disappeared -from the verbs” (cf. Ch. XIX § 12).</p> - -<p>With regard to the vowels, Bopp in AC has the interesting -theory that it is only through a defect in the alphabet that Sanskrit -appears to have <i>a</i> in so many places; he believes that the spoken -language had often “the short Italian <i>e</i> and <i>o</i>,” where <i>a</i> was -written. “If this was the case, we can give a reason why, in words -common to the Sanskrit and Greek, the Indian <i>akāra</i> [that is, -short <i>a</i>] so often corresponds to ε and ο, as, for instance, <i>asti</i>, he -is, ἐστί; <i>patis</i>, husband, πόσις; <i>ambaras</i>, sky, ὄμβρος, rain, -etc.” Later, unfortunately, Bopp came under the influence of -Grimm, who, as we saw, on speculative grounds admitted in the -primitive language only the three vowels <i>a</i>, <i>i</i>, <i>u</i>, and Bopp and -his followers went on believing that the Sanskrit <i>a</i> represented the -original state of language, until the discovery of the ‘palatal law’ -(about 1880) showed (what Bopp’s occasional remark might otherwise -easily have led up to, if he had not himself discarded it) that -the Greek tripartition into <i>a</i>, <i>e</i>, <i>o</i> represented really a more original -state of things.</p> - - -<h4>II.—§ 7. Bopp continued.</h4> - -<p>In a chapter on the roots in AC (not found in C), Bopp contrasts -the structure of Semitic roots and of our own; in Semitic languages -roots must consist of three letters, neither more nor less, and thus -generally contain two syllables, while in Sanskrit, Greek, etc., -the character of the root “is not to be determined by the number -of letters, but by that of the syllables, of which they contain only -one”; thus a root like <i>i</i>, ‘to go,’ would be unthinkable in Arabic. -The consequence of this structure of the roots is that the inner -changes which play such a large part in expressing grammatical -modifications in Semitic languages must be much more restricted -in our family of languages. These changes were what F. Schlegel -termed flexions and what Bopp himself, two years before (C 7), -had named “the truly organic way” of expressing relation and -mentioned as a wonderful flexibility found in an extraordinary -degree in Sanskrit, by the side of which composition with the -verb ‘to be’ is found only occasionally. Now, however, in 1820, -Bopp repudiates Schlegel’s and his own previous assumption that -‘flexion’ was characteristic of Sanskrit in contradistinction to -other languages in which grammatical modifications were expressed -by the addition of suffixes. On the contrary, while holding that -both methods are employed in all languages, Chinese perhaps alone -excepted, he now thinks that it is the suffix method which is prevalent -in Sanskrit, and that “the only real inflexions ... possible<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_53" id="Page_53">[53]</a></span> -in a language, whose elements are monosyllables, are the change -of their vowels and the repetition of their radical consonants, -otherwise called reduplication.” It will be seen that Bopp here -avoids both the onesidedness found in Schlegel’s division of -languages and the other onesidedness which we shall encounter -in later theories, according to which <em>all</em> grammatical elements are -originally independent subordinate roots added to the main root.</p> - -<p>In his <cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Vocalismus</cite> (1827, reprinted 1836) Bopp opposes Grimm’s -theory that the changes for which Grimm had introduced the term -<i>ablaut</i> were due to psychological causes; in other words, possessed -an inner meaning from the very outset. Bopp inclined to a -mechanical explanation<a name="FNanchor_7_7" id="FNanchor_7_7"></a><a href="#Footnote_7_7" class="fnanchor">[7]</a> and thought them dependent on the -weight of the endings, as shown by the contrast between Sanskr. -<i>vēda</i>, Goth. <i>vait</i>, Gr. <i>oîda</i> and the plural, respectively <i>vidima</i>, <i>vitum</i>, -<i>ídmen</i>. In this instance Bopp is in closer agreement than Grimm -with the majority of younger scholars, who see in apophony -(ablaut) an originally non-significant change brought about -mechanically by phonetic conditions, though they do not find -these in the ‘weight’ of the ending, but in the primeval accent: -the accentuation of Sanskrit was not known to Bopp when he -wrote his essay.</p> - -<p>The personal endings of the verbs had already been identified -with the corresponding pronouns by Scheidius (1790) and Rask -(P 258); Bopp adopts the same view, only reproaching Scheidius -for thinking exclusively of the nominative forms of the pronouns.</p> - -<p>It thus appears that in his early work Bopp deals with a great -many general problems, but his treatment is suggestive rather than -exhaustive or decisive, for there are too many errors in details -and his whole method is open to serious criticism. A modern -reader is astonished to see the facility with which violent changes -of sounds, omissions and transpositions of consonants, etc., are -gratuitously accepted. Bopp never reflected as deeply as Rask -did on what constitutes linguistic kinship, hence in C he accepts -the common belief that Persian was related more closely to German -than to Sanskrit, and in later life he tried to establish a relationship -between the Malayo-Polynesian and the Indo-European languages. -But in spite of all this it must be recognized that in his long laborious -life he accomplished an enormous amount of highly meritorious -work, not only in Sanskrit philology, but also in comparative -grammar, in which he gradually freed himself of his worst methodical -errors. He was constantly widening his range of vision, taking -into consideration more and more cognate languages. The ingenious -way in which he explained the curious Keltic shiftings in initial<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_54" id="Page_54">[54]</a></span> -consonants (which had so puzzled Rask as to make him doubt of -a connexion of these languages with our family, but which Bopp -showed to be dependent on a lost final sound of the preceding word) -definitely and irrefutably established the position of those languages. -Among other things that might be credited to his genius, I shall -select his explanation of the various declensional classes as determined -by the final sound of the stem. But it is not part of my -plan to go into many details; suffice it to say that Bopp’s great -<cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Vergleichende grammatik</cite> served for long years as the best, or really -the only, exposition of the new science, and vastly contributed not -only to elucidate obscure points, but also to make comparative -grammar as popular as it is possible for such a necessarily -abstruse science to be.</p> - -<p>In Bopp’s <cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Vergleichende grammatik</cite> (1. § 108) he gives his classification -of languages in general. He rejects Fr. Schlegel’s bipartition, -but his growing tendency to explain everything in Aryan grammar, -even the inner changes of Sanskrit roots, by mechanical causes -makes him modify A. W. Schlegel’s tripartition and place our -family of languages with the second instead of the third class. -His three classes are therefore as follows: I. Languages without -roots proper and without the power of composition, and thus without -organism or grammar; to this class belongs Chinese, in which -most grammatical relations are only to be recognized by the position -of the words. II. Languages with monosyllabic roots, capable -of composition and acquiring their organism, their grammar, -nearly exclusively in this way; the main principle of word formation -is the connexion of verbal and pronominal roots. To this -class belong the Indo-European languages, but also all languages -not comprised under the first or the third class. III. Languages -with disyllabic roots and three necessary consonants as sole bearers -of the signification of the word. This class includes only the -Semitic languages. Grammatical forms are here created not only -by means of composition, as in the second class, but also by inner -modification of the roots.</p> - -<p>It will be seen that Bopp here expressly avoids both expressions -‘agglutination’ and ‘flexion,’ the former because it had been used -of languages contrasted with Aryan, while Bopp wanted to show -the essential identity of the two classes; the latter because it had -been invested with much obscurity on account of Fr. Schlegel’s -use of it to signify inner modification only. According to Schlegel, -only such instances as English <i>drink</i> / <i>drank</i> / <i>drunk</i> are pure -flexion, while German <i>trink-e</i> / <i>trank</i> / <i>ge-trunk-en</i>, and still more -Greek <i>leip-ō</i> / <i>e-lip-on</i> / <i>le-loip-a</i>, besides an element of ‘flexion’ -contain also affixed elements. It is clear that no language can use -‘flexion’ (in Schlegel’s sense) exclusively, and consequently this<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_55" id="Page_55">[55]</a></span> -cannot be made a principle on which to erect a classification of -languages generally. Schlegel’s use of the term ‘flexion’ seems -to have been dropped by all subsequent writers, who use it so as -to include what is actually found in the grammar of such languages -as Sanskrit and Greek, comprising under it inner and outer modifications, -but of course not requiring both in the same form.</p> - -<p>In view of the later development of our science, it is worthy -of notice that neither in the brothers Schlegel nor in Bopp do we -yet meet with the idea that the classes set up are not only a distribution -of the languages found side by side in the world at this -time, but also represent so many stages in historical development; -indeed, Bopp’s definitions are framed so as positively to exclude -any development from his Class II to Class III, as the character -of the underlying roots is quite heterogeneous. On the other hand, -Bopp’s tendency to explain Aryan endings from originally independent -roots paved the way for the theory of isolation, agglutination -and flexion as three successive stages of the same language.</p> - -<p>In his first work (C 56) Bopp had already hinted that in the -earliest period known to us languages had already outlived their -most perfect state and were in a process of decay; and in his -review of Grimm (1827) he repeats this: “We perceive them in -a condition in which they may indeed be progressive syntactically, -but have, as far as grammar is concerned, lost more or less of -what belonged to the perfect structure, in which the separate -members stand in exact relation to each other and in which everything -derived has still a visible and unimpaired connexion with -its source” (Voc. 2). We shall see kindred ideas in Humboldt -and Schleicher.</p> - -<p>To sum up: Bopp set about discovering the ultimate origin -of flexional elements, but instead of that he discovered Comparative -Grammar—“<span lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">à peu près comme Christophe Colomb a découvert -l’Amérique en cherchant la route des Indes</span>,” as A. Meillet puts -it (LI 413). A countryman of Rask may be forgiven for pushing -the French scholar’s brilliant comparison still further: in the -same way as Norsemen from Iceland had discovered America -before Columbus, without imagining that they were finding the -way to India, just so Rasmus Rask through his Icelandic studies -had discovered Comparative Grammar before Bopp, without -needing to take the circuitous route through Sanskrit.</p> - - -<h4>II.—§ 8. Wilhelm von Humboldt.</h4> - -<p>This will be the proper place to mention one of the profoundest -thinkers in the domain of linguistics, Wilhelm von Humboldt -(1767-1835), who, while playing an important part in the political<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_56" id="Page_56">[56]</a></span> -world, found time to study a great many languages and to -think deeply on many problems connected with philology and -ethnography.<a name="FNanchor_8_8" id="FNanchor_8_8"></a><a href="#Footnote_8_8" class="fnanchor">[8]</a></p> - -<p>In numerous works, the most important of which, <cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Ueber die -Kawisprache auf der Insel Jawa</cite>, with the famous introduction -“<span lang="de" xml:lang="de">Ueber die Verschiedenheit des menschlichen Sprachbaues und -ihren Einfluss auf die geistige Entwickelung des Menschengeschlechts</span>,” -was published posthumously in 1836-40, Humboldt -developed his linguistic philosophy, of which it is not -easy to give a succinct idea, as it is largely couched in a -most abstruse style; it is not surprising that his admirer and -follower, Heymann Steinthal, in a series of books, gave as many -different interpretations of Humboldt’s thoughts, each purporting -to be more correct than its predecessors. Still, I believe the -following may be found to be a tolerably fair rendering of some -of Humboldt’s ideas.</p> - -<p>He rightly insists on the importance of seeing in language -a continued activity. Language is not a substance or a finished -work, but action (<span lang="de" xml:lang="de">Sie selbst ist kein werk, <i>ergon</i>, sondern eine -tätigkeit, <i>energeia</i></span>). Language therefore cannot be defined except -genetically. It is the ever-repeated labour of the mind to utilize -articulated sounds to express thoughts. Strictly speaking, this -is a definition of each separate act of speech; but truly and essentially -a language must be looked upon as the totality of such acts.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_57" id="Page_57">[57]</a></span> -For the words and rules, which according to our ordinary notions -make up a language, exist really only in the act of connected speech. -The breaking up of language into words and rules is nothing but -a dead product of our bungling scientific analysis (Versch 41). -Nothing in language is static, everything is dynamic. Language -has nowhere any abiding place, not even in writing; its dead part -must continually be re-created in the mind; in order to exist -it must be spoken or understood, and so pass in its entirety into -the subject (ib. 63).</p> - -<p>Humboldt speaks continually of languages as more perfect or -less perfect. Yet “no language should be condemned or depreciated, -not even that of the most savage tribe, for each language -is a picture of the original aptitude for language” (Versch 304). -In another place he speaks about special excellencies even of languages -that cannot in themselves be recognized as superlatively -good instruments of thought. Undoubtedly Chinese of the old -style carries with it an impressive dignity through the immediate -succession of nothing but momentous notions; it acquires a simple -greatness because it throws away all unnecessary accessory elements -and thus, as it were, takes flight to pure thinking. Malay is rightly -praised for its ease and the great simplicity of its constructions. -The Semitic languages retain an admirable art in the nice discrimination -of sense assigned to many shades of vowels. Basque possesses -a particular vigour, dependent on the briefness and boldness of -expression imparted by the structure of its words and by their -combination. Delaware and other American languages express -in one word a number of ideas for which we should require many -words. The human mind is always capable of producing something -admirable, however one-sided it may be; such special points decide -nothing with regard to the rank of languages (Versch 189 f.). We -have here, as indeed continually in Humboldt, a valuation of languages -with many brilliant remarks, but on the whole we miss the -concrete details abounding in Jenisch’s work. Humboldt, as it -were, lifts us to a higher plane, where the air may be purer, but -where it is also thinner and not seldom cloudier as well.</p> - -<p>According to Humboldt, each separate language, even the most -despised dialect, should be looked upon as an organic whole, different -from all the rest and expressing the individuality of the people -speaking it; it is characteristic of one nation’s psyche, and indicates -the peculiar way in which that nation attempts to realize -the ideal of speech. As a language is thus symbolic of the national -character of those who speak it, very much in each language had -its origin in a symbolic representation of the notion it stands for; -there is a natural nexus between certain sounds and certain general -ideas, and consequently we often find similar sounds used for the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_58" id="Page_58">[58]</a></span> -same, or nearly the same, idea in languages not otherwise related -to one another.</p> - -<p>Humboldt is opposed to the idea of ‘general’ or ‘universal’ -grammar as understood in his time; instead of this purely deductive -grammar he would found an inductive general grammar, -based upon the comparison of the different ways in which the same -grammatical notion was actually expressed in a variety of languages. -He set the example in his paper on the Dual. His own -studies covered a variety of languages; but his works do not give -us many actual concrete facts from the languages he had studied; -he was more interested in abstract reasonings on language in general -than in details.</p> - -<p>In an important paper, <cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Ueber das Entstehen der grammatischen -Formen und ihren Einfluss auf die Ideenentwickelung</cite> (1822), he says -that language at first denotes only objects, leaving it to the hearer -to understand or guess at (<span lang="de" xml:lang="de">hinzudenken</span>) their connexion. By -and by the word-order becomes fixed, and some words lose their -independent use and sound, so that in the second stage we see -grammatical relations denoted through word-order and through -words vacillating between material and formal significations. -Gradually these become affixes, but the connexion is not yet firm, -the joints are still visible, the result being an aggregate, not yet a -unit. Thus in the third stage we have something analogous to -form, but not real form. This is achieved in the fourth stage, -where the word is <em>one</em>, only modified in its grammatical relations -through the flexional sound; each word belongs to one definite -part of speech, and form-words have no longer any disturbing -material signification, but are pure expressions of relation. Such -words as Lat. <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">amavit</i> and Greek <i>epoíēsas</i> are truly grammatical -forms in contradistinction to such combinations of words and syllables -as are found in cruder languages, because we have here a fusion -into one whole, which causes the signification of the parts to be -forgotten and joins them firmly under one accent. Though Humboldt -thus thinks flexion developed out of agglutination, he distinctly -repudiates the idea of a gradual development and rather -inclines to something like a sudden crystallization (see especially -Steinthal’s ed., p. 585).</p> - -<p>Humboldt’s position with regard to the classification of languages -is interesting. In his works we continually meet with the -terms agglutination<a name="FNanchor_9_9" id="FNanchor_9_9"></a><a href="#Footnote_9_9" class="fnanchor">[9]</a> and flexion by the side of a new term, ‘incorporation.’ -This he finds in full bloom in many American languages, -such as Mexican, where the object may be inserted into -the verbal form between the element indicating person and the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_59" id="Page_59">[59]</a></span> -root. Now, Humboldt says that besides Chinese, which has no -grammatical form, there are three possible forms of languages, -the flexional, the agglutinative and the incorporating, but he adds -that all languages contain one or more of these forms (Versch 301). -He tends to deny the existence of any exclusively agglutinative -or exclusively flexional language, as the two principles are generally -commingled (132). Flexion is the only method that gives -to the word the true inner firmness and at the same time distributes -the parts of the sentence according to the necessary interlacing -of thoughts, and thus undoubtedly represents the pure principle -of linguistic structure. Now, the question is, what language carries -out this method in the most consistent way? True perfection -may not be found in any one language: in the Semitic languages -we find flexion in its most genuine shape, united with the most -refined symbolism, only it is not pursued consistently in all parts -of the language, but restricted by more or less accidental laws. -On the other hand, in the Sanskritic languages the compact unity -of every word saves flexion from any suspicion of agglutination; -it pervades all parts of the language and rules it in the highest -freedom (Versch 188). Compared with incorporation and with -the method of loose juxtaposition without any real word-unity, -flexion appears as an intuitive principle born of true linguistic -genius (ib.). Between Sanskrit and Chinese, as the two opposed -poles of linguistic structure, each of them perfect in the consistent -following one principle, we may place all the remaining languages -(ib. 326). But the languages called agglutinative have nothing -in common except just the negative trait that they are neither -isolating nor flexional. The structural diversities of human languages -are so great that they make one despair of a fully comprehensive -classification (ib. 330).</p> - -<p>According to Humboldt, language is in continued development -under the influence of the changing mental power of its speakers. -In this development there are naturally two definite periods, one -in which the creative instinct of speech is still growing and active, -and another in which a seeming stagnation begins and then an -appreciable decline of that creative instinct. Still, the period of -decline may initiate new principles of life and new successful -changes in a language (Versch 184). In the form-creating period -nations are occupied more with the language than with its purpose, -i.e. with what it is meant to signify. They struggle to express -thought, and this craving in connexion with the inspiring feeling -of success produces and sustains the creative power of language -(ib. 191). In the second period we witness a wearing-off of the -flexional forms. This is found less in languages reputed crude or -rough than in refined ones. Language is exposed to the most<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_60" id="Page_60">[60]</a></span> -violent changes when the human mind is most active, for then -it considers too careful an observation of the modifications of -sound as superfluous. To this may be added a want of perception -of the poetic charm inherent in the sound. Thus it is the transition -from a more sensuous to a more intellectual mood that works -changes in a language. In other cases less noble causes are at -work. Rougher organs and less sensitive ears are productive -of indifference to the principle of harmony, and finally a prevalent -practical trend may bring about abbreviations and omissions of -all kinds in its contempt for everything that is not strictly necessary -for the purpose of being understood. While in the first period -the elements still recall their origin to man’s consciousness, there -is an æsthetic pleasure in developing the instrument of mental -activity; but in the second period language serves only the practical -needs of life. In this way such a language as English may -reduce its forms so as to resemble the structure of Chinese; but -there will always remain traces of the old flexions; and English -is no more incapable of high excellences than German (Versch -282-6). What these are Humboldt, however, does not tell us.</p> - - -<h4>II.—§ 9. Grimm Once More.</h4> - -<p>Humboldt here foreshadowed and probably influenced ideas -to which Jacob Grimm gave expression in two essays written in -his old age and which it will be necessary here to touch upon. -In the essay on the pedantry of the German language (<cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Ueber das -pedantische in der deutschen sprache</cite>, 1847), Grimm says that he -has so often praised his mother-tongue that he has acquired the -right once in a while to blame it. If pedantry had not existed -already, Germans would have invented it; it is the shadowy side -of one of their virtues, painstaking accuracy and loyalty. Grimm’s -essay is an attempt at estimating a language, but on the whole it -is less comprehensive and less deep than that of Jenisch. Grimm -finds fault with such things as the ceremoniousness with which -princes are spoken to and spoken of (<i lang="de" xml:lang="de">Durchlauchtigster</i>, <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">allerhöchstderselbe</i>), -and the use of the pronoun <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">Sie</i> in the third person plural -in addressing a single person; he speaks of the clumsiness of the -auxiliaries for the passive, the past and the future, and of the -word-order which makes the Frenchman cry impatiently “<span lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">J’attends -le verbe</span>.” He blames the use of capitals for substantives and other -peculiarities of German spelling, but gives no general statement -of the principles on which the comparative valuation of different -languages should be based, though in many passages we see that -he places the old stages of the language very much higher than -the language of his own day.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_61" id="Page_61">[61]</a></span></p> - -<p>The essay on the origin of language (1851) is much more -important, and may be said to contain the mature expression of -all Grimm’s thoughts on the philosophy of language. Unfortunately, -much of it is couched in that high-flown poetical style -which may be partly a consequence of Grimm’s having approached -the exact study of language through the less exact studies of popular -poetry and folklore; this style is not conducive to clear ideas, and -therefore renders the task of the reporter very difficult indeed. -Grimm at some length argues against the possibility of language -having been either created by God when he created man or having -been revealed by God to man after his creation. The very imperfections -and changeability of language speak against its divine -origin. Language as gradually developed must be the work of -man himself, and therein is different from the immutable cries -and songs of the lower creation. Nature and natural instinct -have no history, but mankind has. Man and woman were created -as grown-up and marriageable beings, and there must have been -created at once more than one couple, for if there had been only -one couple, there would have been the possibility that the one -mother had borne only sons or only daughters, further procreation -being thus rendered impossible (!), not to mention the moral objections -to marriages between brother and sister. How these once -created beings, human in every respect except in language, were -able to begin talking and to find themselves understood, Grimm -does not really tell us; he uses such expressions as ‘inventors’ -of words, but apart from the symbolical value of some sounds, -such as <i>l</i> and <i>r</i>, he thinks that the connexion of word and sense -was quite arbitrary. On the other hand, he can tell us a great -deal about the first stage of human speech: it contained only the -three vowels <i>a</i>, <i>i</i>, <i>u</i>, and only few consonant groups; every word -was a monosyllable, and abstract notions were at first absent. -The existence in all (?) old languages of masculine and feminine -flexions must be due to the influence of women on the formation -of language. Through the distinction of genders Grimm says that -regularity and clearness were suddenly brought about in everything -concerning the noun as by a most happy stroke of fortune. -Endings to indicate person, number, tense and mood originated -in added pronouns and auxiliary words, which at first were loosely -joined to the root, but later coalesced with it. Besides, reduplication -was used to indicate the past; and after the absorption of -the reduplicational syllable the same effect was obtained in German -through apophony. All nouns presuppose verbs, whose material -sense was applied to the designation of things, as when G. <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">hahn</i> -(‘cock’) was thus called from an extinct verb <i>hanan</i>, corresponding -to Lat. <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">canere</i>, ‘to sing.’</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_62" id="Page_62">[62]</a></span></p> - -<p>In what Grimm says about the development of language it is -easy to trace the influence of Humboldt’s ideas, though they are -worked out with great originality. He discerns three stages, -the last two alone being accessible to us through historical documents. -In the first period we have the creation and growing of -roots and words, in the second the flourishing of a perfect flexion, -and in the third a tendency to thoughts, which leads to the giving -up of flexion as not yet (?) satisfactory. They may be compared -to leaf, blossom and fruit, “the beauty of human speech did not -bloom in its beginning, but in its middle period; its ripest fruits -will not be gathered till some time in the future.” He thus sums -up his theory of the three stages: “Language in its earliest form -was melodious, but diffuse and straggling; in its middle form it -was full of intense poetical vigour; in our own days it seeks to -remedy the diminution of beauty by the harmony of the whole, and -is more effective though it has inferior means.” In most places -Grimm still speaks of the downward course of linguistic development; -all the oldest languages of our family “show a rich, pleasant -and admirable perfection of form, in which all material and spiritual -elements have vividly interpenetrated each other,” while in the -later developments of the same languages the inner power and -subtlety of flexion has generally been given up and destroyed, -though partly replaced by external means and auxiliary words. -On the whole, then, the history of language discloses a descent -from a period of perfection to a less perfect condition. This is -the point of view that we meet with in nearly all linguists; but -there is a new note when Grimm begins vaguely and dimly to see -that the loss of flexional forms is sometimes compensated by other -things that may be equally valuable or even more valuable; and -he even, without elaborate arguments, contradicts his own main -contention when he says that “human language is retrogressive -only apparently and in particular points, but looked upon as a -whole it is progressive, and its intrinsic force is continually increasing.” -He instances the English language, which by sheer -making havoc of all old phonetic laws and by the loss of all flexions -has acquired a great force and power, such as is found perhaps -in no other human language. Its wonderfully happy structure -resulted from the marriage of the two noblest languages of Europe; -therefore it was a fit vehicle for the greatest poet of modern times, -and may justly claim the right to be called a world’s language; -like the English people, it seems destined to reign in future even -more than now in all parts of the earth. This enthusiastic panegyric -forms a striking contrast to what the next great German scholar with -whom we have to deal, Schleicher, says about the same language, -which to him shows only “how rapidly the language of a nation -important both in history and literature can decline” (II. 231).</p> - - - -<div class="chapter"> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_63" id="Page_63">[63]</a></span></p> - - - - - -<h3 class="nobreak"><a name="CHAPTER_III" id="CHAPTER_III">CHAPTER III</a><br /> - -<span class="larger">MIDDLE OF NINETEENTH CENTURY</span></h3> -</div> - -<div class="blockquot chaptersummary"> - -<p>§ 1. After Bopp and Grimm. § 2. K. M. Rapp. § 3. J. H. Bredsdorff. -§ 4. August Schleicher. § 5. Classification of Languages. § 6. Reconstruction. -§ 7. Curtius, Madvig and Specialists. § 8. Max Müller and -Whitney.</p></div> - - -<h4>III.—§ 1. After Bopp and Grimm.</h4> - -<p>Bopp and Grimm exercised an enormous influence on linguistic -thought and linguistic research in Germany and other countries. -Long even before their death we see a host of successors following -in the main the lines laid down in their work, and thus directly -and indirectly they determined the development of this science -for a long time. Through their efforts so much new light had -been shed on a number of linguistic phenomena that these took -a quite different aspect from that which they had presented to the -previous generation; most of what had been written about etymology -and kindred subjects in the eighteenth century seemed to the -new school utterly antiquated, mere fanciful vagaries of incompetent -blunderers, whereas now scholars had found firm ground -on which to raise a magnificent structure of solid science. This -feeling was especially due to the undoubted recognition of one -great family of languages to which the vast majority of European -languages, as well as some of the most important Asiatic languages, -belonged: here we had one firmly established fact of the greatest -magnitude, which at once put an end to all the earlier whimsical -attempts to connect Latin and Greek words with Hebrew roots. -As for the name of that family of languages, Rask hesitated between -different names, ‘European,’ ‘Sarmatic’ and finally ‘Japhetic’ -(as a counterpart of the Semitic and the Hamitic languages); -Bopp at first had no comprehensive name, and on the title-page -of his <cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Vergl. grammatik</cite> contents himself with enumerating the -chief languages described, but in the work itself he says that he -prefers the name ‘Indo-European,’ which has also found wide -acceptance, though more in France, England and Skandinavia -than in Germany. Humboldt for a long while said ‘Sanskritic,’ -but later he adopted ‘Indo-Germanic,’ and this has been the generally -recognized name used in Germany, in spite of Bopp’s protest -who said that ‘Indo-klassisch’ would be more to the point; ‘Indo-<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_64" id="Page_64">[64]</a></span>Keltic’ -has also been proposed as designating the family through -its two extreme members to the East and West. But all these -compound names are clumsy without being completely pertinent, -and it seems therefore much better to use the short and convenient -term ‘the Aryan languages’: Aryan being the oldest -name by which any members of the family designated themselves -(in India and Persia).<a name="FNanchor_10_10" id="FNanchor_10_10"></a><a href="#Footnote_10_10" class="fnanchor">[10]</a></p> - -<p>Thanks to the labours of Bopp and Grimm and their co-workers -and followers, we see also a change in the status of the study of -languages. Formerly this was chiefly a handmaiden to philology—but -as this word is often in English used in a sense unknown -to other languages and really objectionable, namely as a synonym -of (comparative) study of languages, it will be necessary first to -say a few words about the terminology of our science. In this -book I shall use the word ‘philology’ in its continental sense, which -is often rendered in English by the vague word ‘scholarship,’ -meaning thereby the study of the specific culture of one nation; -thus we speak of Latin philology, Greek philology, Icelandic -philology, etc. The word ‘linguist,’ on the other hand, is not infrequently -used in the sense of one who has merely a practical knowledge -of some foreign language; but I think I am in accordance -with a growing number of scholars in England and America if I -call such a man a ‘practical linguist’ and apply the word ‘linguist’ -by itself to the scientific student of language (or of languages); -‘linguistics’ then becomes a shorter and more convenient name -for what is also called the science of language (or of languages).</p> - -<p>Now that the reader understands the sense in which I take -these two terms, I may go on to say that the beginning of the nineteenth -century witnessed a growing differentiation between philology -and linguistics in consequence of the new method introduced -by comparative and by historical grammar; it was nothing less -than a completely new way of looking at the facts of language -and trying to trace their origin. While to the philologist the -Greek or Latin language, etc., was only a means to an end, to the -linguist it was an end in itself. The former saw in it a valuable, -and in fact an indispensable, means of gaining a first-hand knowledge -of the literature which was his chief concern, but the linguist -cared not for the literature as such, but studied languages for their -own sake, and might even turn to languages destitute of literature -because they were able to throw some light on the life of language -in general or on forms in related languages. The philologist as -such would not think of studying the Gothic of Wulfila, as a know<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_65" id="Page_65">[65]</a></span>ledge -of that language gives access only to a translation of parts -of the Bible, the ideas of which can be studied much better elsewhere; -but to the linguist Gothic was extremely valuable. The -differentiation, of course, is not an absolute one; besides being -linguists in the new sense, Rask was an Icelandic philologist, -Bopp a Sanskrit philologist, and Grimm a German philologist; -but the tendency towards the emancipation of linguistics was very -strong in them, and some of their pupils were pure linguists and -did no work in philology.</p> - -<p>In breaking away from philology and claiming for linguistics -the rank of a new and independent science, the partisans of the -new doctrine were apt to think that not only had they discovered -a new method, but that the object of their study was different -from that of the philologists, even when they were both concerned -with language. While the philologist looked upon language as -part of the culture of some nation, the linguist looked upon it as -a natural object; and when in the beginning of the nineteenth century -philosophers began to divide all sciences into the two sharply -separated classes of mental and natural sciences (<span lang="de" xml:lang="de">geistes- und -naturwissenschaften</span>), linguists would often reckon their science -among the latter. There was in this a certain amount of pride -or boastfulness, for on account of the rapid rise and splendid -achievements of the natural sciences at that time, it began to be a -matter of common belief that they were superior to, and were possessed -of a more scientific method than, the other class—the same -view that finds an expression in the ordinary English usage, -according to which ‘science’ means natural science and the -other domains of human knowledge are termed the ‘arts’ or the -‘humanities.’</p> - -<p>We see the new point of view in occasional utterances of the -pioneers of linguistic science. Rask expressly says that “Language -is a natural object and its study resembles natural history” -(SA 2. 502); but when he repeats the same sentence (in <cite lang="da" xml:lang="da">Retskrivningslære</cite>, -8) it appears that he is thinking of language as opposed -to the more artificial writing, and the contrast is not between -mental and natural science, but between art and nature, between -what can and what cannot be consciously modified by man—it is -really a different question.</p> - -<p>Bopp, in his review of Grimm (1827, reprinted <cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Vocalismus</cite>, -1836, p. 1), says: “Languages are to be considered organic natural -bodies, which are formed according to fixed laws, develop as possessing -an inner principle of life, and gradually die out because -they do not understand themselves any longer [!], and therefore -cast off or mutilate their members or forms, which were at first -significant, but gradually have become more of an extrinsic mass....<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_66" id="Page_66">[66]</a></span> -It is not possible to determine how long languages may preserve -their full vigour of life and of procreation,” etc. This is -highly figurative language which should not be taken at its face -value; but expressions like these, and the constant use of such -words as ‘organic’ and ‘inorganic’ in speaking of formations in -languages, and ‘organism’ of the whole language, would tend to -widen the gulf between the philological and the linguistic point of -view. Bopp himself never consistently followed the naturalistic -way of looking at language, but in § 4 of this chapter we shall see -that Schleicher was not afraid of going to extremes and building -up a consistent natural science of language.</p> - -<p>The cleavage between philology and linguistics did not take -place without arousing warm feeling. Classical scholars disliked -the intrusion of Sanskrit everywhere; they did not know that -language and did not see the use of it. They resented the way -in which the new science wanted to reconstruct Latin and Greek -grammar and to substitute new explanations for those which -had always been accepted. Those Sanskritists chatted of guna -and vrddhi and other barbaric terms, and even ventured to talk -of a locative case in Latin, as if the number of cases had not been -settled once for all long ago!<a name="FNanchor_11_11" id="FNanchor_11_11"></a><a href="#Footnote_11_11" class="fnanchor">[11]</a></p> - -<p>Classicists were no doubt perfectly right when they reproached -comparativists for their neglect of syntax, which to them was the -most important part of grammar; they were also in some measure -right when they maintained that linguists to a great extent contented -themselves with a superficial knowledge of the languages -compared, which they studied more in grammars and glossaries -than in living texts, and sometimes they would even exult when -they found proof of this in solecisms in Bopp’s Latin translations -from Sanskrit, and even on the title-page of <cite lang="la" xml:lang="la">Glossarium Sanscritum -a Franzisco Bopp</cite>. Classical scholars also looked askance at the -growing interest in the changes of sounds, or, as it was then usual -to say, of letters. But when they were apt here to quote the scriptural -phrase about the letter that killeth, while the spirit giveth -life, they overlooked the fact that Nature has rendered it impossible -for anyone to penetrate to the mind of anyone else except -through its outer manifestations, and that it is consequently -impossible to get at the spirit of a language except through its -sounds: phonology must therefore form the necessary basis and -prerequisite of the scientific study of any group of languages. -Still, it cannot be denied that sometimes comparative phonology -was treated in such a mechanical way as partly to dehumanize the -study of language.</p> -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_67" id="Page_67">[67]</a></span></p> -<p>When we look back at this period in the history of linguistics, -there are certain tendencies and characteristics that cannot fail -to catch our attention. First we must mention the prominence -given to Sanskrit, which was thought to be the unavoidable requirement -of every comparative linguist. In explaining anything -in any of the cognate languages the etymologist always turned -first to Sanskrit words and Sanskrit forms. This standpoint is -found even much later, for instance in Max Müller’s <cite>Inaugural -Address</cite> (1868, Ch. 19): “Sanskrit certainly forms the only sound -foundation of Comparative Philology, and it will always remain -the only safe guide through all its intricacies. A comparative -philologist without a knowledge of Sanskrit is like an astronomer -without a knowledge of mathematics.” A linguist of a later -generation may be excused for agreeing rather with Ellis, who says -(<cite>Transact. Philol. Soc.</cite>, 1873-4, 21): “Almost in our own days -came the discovery of Sanskrit, and philology proper began—but, -alas! at the wrong end. Now, here I run great danger of being -misunderstood. Although for a scientific sifting of the nature -of language I presume to think that beginning at Sanskrit was -unfortunate, yet I freely admit that, had that language not been -brought into Europe ... our knowledge of language would have -been in a poor condition indeed.... We are under the greatest -obligations to those distinguished men who have undertaken to -unravel its secrets and to show its connexion with the languages -of Europe. Yet I must repeat that for the pure science of -language, to begin with Sanskrit was as much beginning at the -wrong end as it would have been to commence zoology with -palæontology—the relations of life with the bones of the dead.”</p> - -<p>Next, Bopp and his nearest successors were chiefly occupied -with finding likenesses between the languages treated and discovering -things that united them. This was quite natural in the -first stage of the new science, but sometimes led to one-sidedness, -the characteristic individuality of each language being lost sight -of, while forms from many countries and many times were mixed -up in a hotch-potch. Rask, on account of his whole mental equipment, -was less liable to this danger than most of his contemporaries; -but Pott was evidently right when he warned his fellow-students -that their comparative linguistics should be supplemented by -separative linguistics (<cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Zählmethode</cite>, 229), as it has been to a great -extent in recent years.</p> - -<p>Still another feature of the linguistic science of those days -is the almost exclusive occupation of the student with dead -languages. It was quite natural that the earliest comparativists -should first give their attention to the oldest stages of the languages -compared, since these alone enabled them to prove the essential<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_68" id="Page_68">[68]</a></span> -kinship between the different members of the great Aryan family. -In Grimm’s grammar nearly all the space is taken up with Gothic, -Old High German, Old Norse, etc., and comparatively little is said -about recent developments of the same languages. In Bopp’s -comparative grammar classical Greek and Latin are, of course, -treated carefully, but Modern Greek and the Romanic languages -are not mentioned (thus also in Schleicher’s <cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Compendium</cite> and in -Brugmann’s <cite>Grammar</cite>), such later developments being left to -specialists who were more or less considered to be outside the sphere -of Comparative Linguistics and even of the science of language -in general, though it would have been a much more correct view -to include them in both, and though much more could really be -learnt of the life of language from these studies than from comparisons -made in the spirit of Bopp.</p> - -<p>The earlier stages of different languages, which were compared -by linguists, were, of course, accessible only through the medium -of writing; we have seen that the early linguists spoke constantly -of letters and not of sounds. But this vitiated their whole outlook -on languages. These were scarcely ever studied at first-hand, -and neither in Bopp nor in Grimm nor in Pott or Benfey do we find -such first-hand observations of living spoken languages as play a -great rôle in the writings of Rask and impart an atmosphere of -soundness to his whole manner of looking at languages. If -languages were called natural objects, they were not yet studied -as such or by truly naturalistic methods.</p> - -<p>When living dialects were studied, the interest constantly -centred round the archaic traits in them; every survival of an old -form, every trace of old sounds that had been dropped in the -standard speech, was greeted with enthusiasm, and the significance -of these old characteristics greatly exaggerated, the general impression -being that popular dialects were always much more conservative -than the speech of educated people. It was reserved -for a much later time to prove that this view is completely -erroneous, and that popular dialects, in spite of many archaic -details, are on the whole further developed than the various -standard languages with their stronger tradition and literary -reminiscences.</p> - - -<h4>III.—§ 2. K. M. Rapp.</h4> - -<p>It was from this archæological point of view only that Grimm -encouraged the study of dialects, but he expressly advised students -not to carry the research too far in the direction of discriminating -minutiæ of sounds, because these had little bearing on the history -of language as he understood it. In this connexion we may<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_69" id="Page_69">[69]</a></span> -mention an episode in the history of early linguistics that is symptomatic. -K. M. Rapp brought out his <cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Versuch einer Physiologie -der Sprache nebst historischer Entwickelung der abendländischen -Idiome nach physiologischen Grundsätzen</cite> in four volumes (1836, -1839, 1840, 1841). A physiological examination into the nature -and classification of speech sounds was to serve only as the basis -of the historical part, the grandiose plan of which was to find out -how Greek, Latin and Gothic sounded, and then to pursue the -destinies of these sound systems through the Middle Ages (Byzantine -Greek, Old Provençal, Old French, Old Norse, Anglo-Saxon, Old -High German) to the present time (Modern Greek, Italian, Spanish, -etc., down to Low and High German, with different dialects). -To carry out this plan Rapp was equipped with no small knowledge -of the earlier stages of these languages and a not contemptible -first-hand observation of living languages. He relates how from -his childhood he had a “morbidly sharpened ear for all acoustic -impressions”; he had early observed the difference between -dialectal and educated speech and taken an interest in foreign -languages, such as French, Italian and English. He visited Denmark, -and there made the acquaintance of and became the pupil -of Rask; he often speaks of him and his works in terms of the -greatest admiration. After his return he took up the study of -Jacob Grimm; but though he speaks always very warmly about -the other parts of Grimm’s work, Grimm’s phonology disappointed -him. “Grimm’s theory of letters I devoured with a ravenous -appetite for all the new things I had to learn from it, but also with -heartburning on account of the equally numerous things that -warred against the whole of my previous research with regard to -the nature of speech sounds; fascinated though I was by what -I read, it thus made me incredibly miserable.” He set to his -great task with enthusiasm, led by the conviction that “the historical -material gives here only one side of the truth, and that the -living language in all its branches that have never been committed -to writing forms the other and equally important side which is -still far from being satisfactorily investigated.” It is easy to -understand that Rapp came into conflict with Grimm’s <cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Buchstabenlehre</cite>, -that had been based exclusively on written forms, -and Rapp was not afraid of expressing his unorthodox views in -what he himself terms “a violent and arrogating tone.” No -wonder, therefore, that his book fell into disgrace with the leaders -of linguistics in Germany, who noticed its errors and mistakes, -which were indeed numerous and conspicuous, rather than the new -and sane ideas it contained. Rapp’s work is extraordinarily little -known; in Raumer’s <cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Geschichte der germanischen Philologie</cite> and -similar works it is not even mentioned, and when I disinterred it<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_70" id="Page_70">[70]</a></span> -from undeserved oblivion in my <cite lang="da" xml:lang="da">Fonetik</cite> (1897, p. 35; cf. <cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Die -neueren Sprachen</cite>, vol. xiii, 1904) it was utterly unknown to the -German phoneticians of my acquaintance. Yet not only are its -phonetic observations<a name="FNanchor_12_12" id="FNanchor_12_12"></a><a href="#Footnote_12_12" class="fnanchor">[12]</a> deserving of praise, but still more its whole -plan, based as it is on a thorough comprehension of the mutual -relations of sounds and writing, which led Rapp to use phonetic -transcription throughout, even in connected specimens both of -living and dead languages; that this is really the only way in which -it is possible to obtain a comprehensive and living understanding -of the sound-system of any language (as well as to get a clear -perception of the extent of one’s own ignorance of it!) has not -yet been generally recognized. The science of language would -have made swifter and steadier progress if Grimm and his successors -had been able to assimilate the main thoughts of Rapp.</p> - - -<h4>III.—§ 3. J. H. Bredsdorff.</h4> - -<p>Another (and still earlier) work that was overlooked at the time -was the little pamphlet <cite lang="da" xml:lang="da">Om Aarsagerne til Sprogenes Forandringer</cite> -(1821) by the Dane J. H. Bredsdorff. Bopp and Grimm never -really asked themselves the fundamental question, How is it that -language changes: what are the driving forces that lead in course -of time to such far-reaching differences as those we find between -Sanskrit and Latin, or between Latin and French? Now, this is -exactly the question that Bredsdorff treats in his masterly pamphlet. -Like Rapp, he was a very good phonetician; but in the pamphlet -that concerns us here he speaks not only of phonetic but of other -linguistic changes as well. These he refers to the following causes, -which he illustrates with well-chosen examples: (1) Mishearing -and misunderstanding; (2) misrecollection; (3) imperfection of -organs; (4) indolence: to this he inclines to refer nine-tenths -of all those changes in the pronunciation of a language that are -not due to foreign influences; (5) tendency towards analogy: here -he gives instances from the speech of children and explains by -analogy such phenomena as the extension of <i>s</i> to all genitives, -etc.; (6) the desire to be distinct; (7) the need of expressing -new ideas. He recognizes that there are changes that cannot be -brought under any of these explanations, e.g. the Gothonic sound -shift (cf. above, p. <a href="#Page_43">43</a> note), and he emphasizes the many ways in -which foreign nations or foreign languages may influence a -language. Bredsdorff’s explanations may not always be correct;<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_71" id="Page_71">[71]</a></span> -but what constitutes the deep originality of his little book is the -way in which linguistic changes are always regarded in terms of -human activity, chiefly of a psychological character. Here he was -head and shoulders above his contemporaries; in fact, most of -Bredsdorff’s ideas, such as the power of analogy, were the same -that sixty years later had to fight so hard to be recognized by -the leading linguists of that time.<a name="FNanchor_13_13" id="FNanchor_13_13"></a><a href="#Footnote_13_13" class="fnanchor">[13]</a></p> - - -<h4>III.—§ 4. August Schleicher.</h4> - -<p>In Rapp, and even more in Bredsdorff, we get a whiff of the -scientific atmosphere of a much later time; but most of the linguists -of the twenties and following decades (among whom A. F. Pott -deserves to be specially named) moved in essentially the same -grooves as Bopp and Grimm, and it will not be necessary here to -deal in detail with their work.</p> - -<p>August Schleicher (1821-68) in many ways marks the culmination -of the first period of Comparative Linguistics, as well -as the transition to a new period with different aims and, partially -at any rate, a new method. His intimate knowledge of many -languages, his great power of combination, his clear-cut and always -lucid exposition—all this made him a natural leader, and made -his books for many years the standard handbooks of linguistic -science. Unlike Bopp and Grimm, he was exclusively a linguist, -or, as he called it himself, ‘<span lang="de" xml:lang="de">glottiker</span>,’ and never tired of claiming -for the science of linguistics (‘<span lang="de" xml:lang="de">glottik</span>’), as opposed to philology, -the rank of a separate natural science. Schleicher specialized in -Slavonic and Lithuanian; he studied the latter language in its -own home and took down a great many songs and tales from the -mouths of the peasants; he was for some years a professor in the -University of Prague, and there acquired a conversational knowledge -of Czech; he spoke Russian, too, and thus in contradistinction -to Bopp and Grimm had a first-hand knowledge of more -than one foreign language; his interest in living speech is also -manifested in his specimens of the dialect of his native town, -<cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Volkstümliches aus Sonneberg</cite>. When he was a child his father -very severely insisted on the constant and correct use of the educated -language at home; but the boy, perhaps all the more on -account of the paternal prohibition, was deeply attracted to the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_72" id="Page_72">[72]</a></span> -popular dialect he heard from his playfellows and to the fascinating -folklore of the old townspeople, which he was later to -take down and put into print. In the preface he says that the -acquisition of foreign tongues is rendered considerably easier -through the habit of speaking two dialects from childhood.</p> - -<p>What makes Schleicher particularly important for the purposes -of this volume is the fact that in a long series of publications he -put forth not only details of his science, but original and comprehensive -views on the fundamental questions of linguistic theory, -and that these had great influence on the linguistic philosophy of -the following decades. He was, perhaps, the most consistent as well -as one of the clearest of linguistic thinkers, and his views therefore -deserve to be examined in detail and with the greatest care.</p> - -<p>Apart from languages, Schleicher was deeply interested both -in philosophy and in natural science, especially botany. From -these he fetched many of the weapons of his armoury, and they -coloured the whole of his theory of language. In his student days -at Tübingen he became an enthusiastic adherent of the philosophy -of Hegel, and not even the Darwinian sympathies and views of -which he became a champion towards the end of his career made -him abandon the doctrines of his youth. As for science, he says -that naturalists make us understand that in science nothing is -of value except facts established through strictly objective observation -and the conclusions based on such facts—this is a lesson that -he thinks many of his colleagues would do well to take to heart. -There can be no doubt that Schleicher in his practice followed a -much more rigorous and sober method than his predecessors, -and that his <cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Compendium</cite> in that respect stands far above Bopp’s -<cite>Grammar</cite>. In his general reasonings on the nature of language, -on the other hand, Schleicher did not always follow the strict -principles of sober criticism, being, as we shall now see, too -dependent on Hegelian philosophy, and also on certain dogmatic -views that he had inherited from previous German linguists, -from Schlegel downwards.</p> - -<p>The Introductions to Schleicher’s two first volumes are entirely -Hegelian, though with a characteristic difference, for in the first -he says that the changes to be seen in the realm of languages are -decidedly historical and in no way resemble the changes that we -may observe in nature, for “however manifold these may be, they -never show anything but a circular course that repeats itself continually” -(Hegel), while in language, as in everything mental, we -may see new things that have never existed before. One generation -of animals or plants is like another; the skill of animals has no -history, as human art has; language is specifically human and -mental: its development is therefore analogous to history, for in<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_73" id="Page_73">[73]</a></span> -both we see a continual progress to new phases. In Schleicher’s -second volume, however, this view is expressly rejected in its -main part, because Schleicher now wants to emphasize the natural -character of language: it is true, he now says, that language -shows a ‘<span lang="de" xml:lang="de">werden</span>’ which may be termed history in the wider -sense of this word, but which is found in its purest form in -nature; for instance, in the growing of a plant. Language -belongs to the natural sphere, not to the sphere of free mental -activity, and this must be our starting-point if we would discover -the method of linguistic science (ii. 21).</p> - -<p>It would, of course, be possible to say that the method of linguistic -science is that of natural science, and yet to maintain that -the object of linguistics is different from that of natural science, -but Schleicher more and more tends to identify the two, and when -he was attacked for saying, in his pamphlet on the Darwinian theory, -that languages were material things, real natural objects, he wrote -in defence <cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Ueber die bedeutung der sprache für die naturgeschichte -des menschen</cite>, which is highly characteristic as the culminating point -of the materialistic way of looking at languages. The activity, -he says, of any organ, e.g. one of the organs of digestion, or the brain -or muscles, is dependent on the constitution of that organ. The -different ways in which different species, nay even different individuals, -walk are evidently conditioned by the structure of the -limbs; the activity or function of the organ is, as it were, nothing -but an aspect of the organ itself, even if it is not always possible -by means of the knife or microscope of the scientist to demonstrate -the material cause of the phenomenon. What is true of the manner -of walking is true of language as well; for language is nothing -but the result, perceptible through the ear, of the action of a complex -of material substances in the structure of the brain and of -the organs of speech, with their nerves, bones, muscles, etc. Anatomists, -however, have not yet been able to demonstrate differences -in the structures of these organs corresponding to differences of -nationality—to discriminate, that is, the organs of a Frenchman -(<i>quâ</i> Frenchman) from those of a German (<i>quâ</i> German). Accordingly, -as the chemist can only arrive at the elements which compose -the sun by examining the light which it emits, while the -source of that light remains inaccessible to him, so must we be -content to study the nature of languages, not in their material -antecedents but in their audible manifestations. It makes no -great difference, however, for “the two things stand to each other -as cause and effect, as substance and phenomenon: a philosopher -[i.e. a Hegelian] would say that they are identical.”</p> - -<p>Now I, for one, fail to understand how this can be what Schleicher -believes it to be, “a refutation of the objection that language is<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_74" id="Page_74">[74]</a></span> -nothing but a consequence of the activity of these organs.” The -sun exists independently of the human observer; but there could -be no such thing as language if there was not besides the speaker -a listener who might become a speaker in his turn. Schleicher -speaks continually in his pamphlet as if structural differences in -the brain and organs of speech were the real language, and as if -it were only for want of an adequate method of examining this -hidden structure that we had to content ourselves with studying -language in its outward manifestation as audible speech. But -this is certainly on the face of it preposterous, and scarcely needs -any serious refutation. If the proof of the pudding is in the -eating, the proof of a language must be in the hearing and understanding; -but in order to be heard words must first be spoken, -and in these two activities (that of producing and that of perceiving -sounds) the real essence of language must consist, and -these two activities are the primary (or why not the exclusive?) -object of the science of language.</p> - -<p>Schleicher goes on to meet another objection that may be made -to his view of the ‘substantiality of language,’ namely, that drawn -from the power of learning other languages. Schleicher doubts -the possibility of learning another language to perfection; he -would admit this only in the case of a man who exchanged his -mother-tongue for another in his earliest youth; “but then he -becomes by that very fact a different being from what he was: -brain and organs of speech develop in another direction.” If -Mr. So-and-So is said to speak and write German, English and -French equally well, Schleicher first inclines to doubt the fact; -and then, granting that the same individual may “be at the same -time a German, a Frenchman and an Englishman,” he asks us to -remember that all these three languages belong to the same family -and may, from a broader point of view, be termed species of the same -language; but he denies the possibility of anyone’s being equally -at home in Chinese and German, or in Arabic and Hottentot, etc., -because these languages are totally different in their innermost -essence. (But what of bilingual children in Finland, speaking -Swedish and Finnish, or in Greenland, speaking Danish and Eskimo, -or in Java, speaking Dutch and Malay?) Schleicher has to admit -that our organs are to some extent flexible and capable of acquiring -activities that they had not at first; but one definite function -is and remains nevertheless the only natural one, and thus “the -possibility of a man’s acquiring foreign languages more or less -perfectly is no objection to our seeing the material basis of language -in the structure of the brain and organs of speech.”</p> - -<p>Even if we admit that Schleicher is so far right that in nearly -all (or all?) cases of bilingualism one language comes more naturally<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_75" id="Page_75">[75]</a></span> -than the other, he certainly exaggerates the difference, which is -always one of degree; and at any rate his final conclusion is wrong, -for we might with the same amount of justice say that a man who -has first learned to play the piano has acquired the structure of -brain and fingers peculiar to a pianist, and that it is then unnatural -for him also to learn to play the violin, because that would imply -a different structure of these organs. In all these cases we have to -do with a definite proficiency or skill, which can only be obtained -by constant practice, though of course one man may be better -predisposed by nature for it than another; but then it is also the -fact that people who speak no foreign language attain to very -different degrees of proficiency in the use of their mother-tongue. -It cannot be said too emphatically that we have here a fundamental -question, and that Schleicher’s view can never lead to a true conception -of what language is, or to a real insight into its changes -and historical development.</p> - -<p>Schleicher goes on to say that the classification of mankind into -races should not be based on the formation of the skull or on the -character of the hair, or any such external criteria, as they are by -no means constant, but rather on language, because this is a -thoroughly constant criterion. This alone would give a perfectly -natural system, one, for instance, in which all Turks would be -classed together, while otherwise the Osmanli Turk belongs to the -‘Caucasian’ race and the so-called Tataric Turks to the ‘Mongolian’ -race; on the other hand, the Magyar and the Basque -are not physically to be distinguished from the Indo-European, -though their languages are widely dissimilar. According to -Schleicher, therefore, the natural system of languages is also the -natural system of mankind, for language is closely connected with -the whole higher life of men, which is therefore taken into consideration -in and with their language. In this book I am not concerned -with the ethnographical division of mankind into races, -and I therefore must content myself with saying that the very -examples adduced by Schleicher seem to me to militate against -his theory that a division of mankind based on language is the -natural one: are we to reckon the Basque’s son, who speaks nothing -but French (or Spanish) as belonging to a different race from his -father? And does not Schleicher contradict himself when on -p. 16 he writes that language is <span lang="de" xml:lang="de">“ein völlig constantes merkmal</span>,” -and p. 20 that it is “<span lang="de" xml:lang="de">in fortwährender veränderung begriffen</span>”? -So far as I see, Schleicher never expressly says that he thinks that -the physical structure conditioning the structure of a man’s language -is hereditary, though some of his expressions point that way, -and that may be what he means by the expression ‘constant.’ -In other places (Darw. 25, Bed. 24) he allows external conditions<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_76" id="Page_76">[76]</a></span> -of life to exercise some influence on the character of a language, -as when languages of neighbouring peoples are similar (Aryans -and Semites, for example, are the only nations possessing flexional -languages). On such points, however, he gives only a few hints -and suggestions.</p> - - -<h4>III.—§ 5. Classification of Languages.</h4> - -<p>In the question of the classification of languages Schleicher -introduces a deductive element from his strong preoccupation with -Hegelian ideas. Hegel everywhere moves in trilogies; Schleicher -therefore must have three classes, and consequently has to tack -together two of Pott’s four classes (agglutinating and incorporating); -then he is able philosophically to deduce the tripartition. For -language consists in <em>meaning</em> (<span lang="de" xml:lang="de">bedeutung</span>; matter, contents, root) -and <em>relation</em> (<span lang="de" xml:lang="de">beziehung</span>; form), <span lang="la" xml:lang="la">tertium non datur</span>. As it would -be a sheer impossibility for a language to express form only, we -obtain three classes:</p> - -<p>I. Here meaning is the only thing indicated by sound; relation -is merely suggested by word-position: isolating languages.</p> - -<p>II. Both meaning and relation are expressed by sound, but -the formal elements are visibly tacked on to the root, which is -itself invariable: agglutinating languages.</p> - -<p>III. The elements of meaning and of relation are fused together -or absorbed into a higher unity, the root being susceptible of -inward modification as well as of affixes to denote form: flexional -languages.</p> - -<p>Schleicher employs quasi-mathematical formulas to illustrate -these three classes: if we denote a root by <i>R</i>, a prefix by <i>p</i> and -a suffix by <i>s</i>, and finally use a raised <i>x</i> to denote an inner modification, -we see that in the isolated languages we have nothing but -<i>R</i> (a sentence may be represented by <i>R R R R ...</i>), a word in the -second class has the formula <i>R s</i> or <i>p R</i> or <i>p R s</i>, but in the third -class we may have <i>p R<sup>x</sup> s</i> (or <i>R<sup>x</sup> s</i>).</p> - -<p>Now, according to Schleicher the three classes of languages -are not only found simultaneously in the tongues of our own -day, but they represent three stages of linguistic development; -“to the <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">nebeneinander</i> of the system corresponds the <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">nacheinander</i> -of history.” Beyond the flexional stage no language can attain; -the symbolic denotation of relation by flexion is the highest -accomplishment of language; speech has here effectually realized -its object, which is to give a faithful phonetic image of -thought. But before a language can become flexional it must -have passed through an isolating and an agglutinating period. -Is this theory borne out by historical facts? Can we trace back<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_77" id="Page_77">[77]</a></span> -any of the existing flexional languages to agglutination and -isolation? Schleicher himself answers this question in the -negative: the earliest Latin was of as good a flexional type as -are the modern Romanic languages. This would seem a sort -of contradiction in terms; but the orthodox Hegelian is ready -with an answer to any objection; he has the word of his master -that History cannot begin till the human spirit becomes “conscious -of its own freedom,” and this consciousness is only possible -after the complete development of language. The formation of -Language and History are accordingly successive stages of human -activity. Moreover, as history and historiography, i.e. literature, -come into existence simultaneously, Schleicher is enabled to express -the same idea in a way that “is only seemingly paradoxical,” -namely, that the development of language is brought to a conclusion -as soon as literature makes its appearance; this is a crisis after -which language remains fixed; language has now become a means, -instead of being the aim, of intellectual activity. We never meet -with any language that is developing or that has become more -perfect; in historical times all languages move only downhill; -linguistic history means decay of languages as such, subjugated -as they are through the gradual evolution of the mind to greater -freedom.</p> - -<p>The reader of the above survey of previous classifications -will easily see that in the matter itself Schleicher adds very little -of his own. Even the expressions, which are here given throughout -in Schleicher’s own words, are in some cases recognizable -as identical with, or closely similar to, those of earlier scholars.</p> - -<p>He made one coherent system out of ideas of classification -and development already found in others. What is new is the -philosophical substructure of Hegelian origin, and there can be -no doubt that Schleicher imagined that by this addition he contributed -very much towards giving stability and durability to -the whole system. And yet this proved to be the least stable -and durable part of the structure, and as a matter of fact the -Hegelian reasoning is not repeated by a single one of those who -give their adherence to the classification. Nor can it be said -to carry conviction, and undoubtedly it has seemed to most -linguists at the same time too rigid and too unreal to have any -importance.</p> - -<p>But apart from the philosophical argument the classification -proved very successful in the particular shape it had found in -Schleicher. Its adoption into two such widely read works as -Max Müller’s and Whitney’s Lectures on the Science of Language -contributed very much to the popularity of the system, though -the former’s attempt at ascribing to the tripartition a sociological<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_78" id="Page_78">[78]</a></span> -importance by saying that juxtaposition (isolation) is characteristic -of the ‘family stage,’ agglutination of ‘the nomadic stage’ and -amalgamation (flexion) of the ‘political stage’ of human society -was hardly taken seriously by anybody.</p> - -<p>The chief reasons for the popularity of this classification are -not far to seek. It is easy of handling and appeals to the -natural fondness for clear-cut formulas through its specious -appearance of regularity and rationality. Besides, it flatters -widespread prejudices in so far as it places the two groups -of languages highest that are spoken by those nations which -have culturally and religiously exercised the deepest influence -on the civilization of the world, Aryans and Semites. Therefore -also Pott’s view, according to which the incorporating or -‘polysynthetic’ American languages possess the same characteristics -that distinguish flexion as against agglutination, only -in a still higher degree, is generally tacitly discarded, for obviously -it would not do to place some languages of American Indians -higher than Sanskrit or Greek. But when these are looked upon -as the very flower of linguistic development it is quite natural -to regard the modern languages of Western Europe as degenerate -corruptions of the ancient more highly flexional languages; this -is in perfect keeping with the prevalent admiration for classical -antiquity and with the belief in a far past golden age. Arguments -such as these may not have been consciously in the minds -of the framers of the ordinary classification, but there can be -no doubt that they have been unconsciously working in favour -of the system, though very little thought seems to be required -to show the fallacy of the assumption that high civilization -has any intrinsic and necessary connexion with the <em>grammatical</em> -construction of the language spoken by the race or nation concerned. -No language of modern Europe presents the flexional -type in a purer shape than Lithuanian, where we find preserved -nearly the same grammatical system as in old Sanskrit, yet no -one would assert that the culture of Lithuanian peasants is higher -than that of Shakespeare, whose language has lost an enormous -amount of the old flexions. Culture and language must be appraised -separately, each on its own merits and independently of the -other.</p> - -<p>From a purely linguistic point of view there are many objections -to the usual classification, and it will be well here to bring them -together, though this will mean an interruption of the historical -survey which is the main object of these chapters.</p> - -<p>First let us look upon the tripartition as purporting a comprehensive -classification of languages as existing side by side -without any regard to historic development (the <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">nebeneinander</i><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_79" id="Page_79">[79]</a></span> -of Schleicher). Here it does not seem to be an ideal manner of -classifying a great many objects to establish three classes of such -different dimensions that the first comprises only Chinese and -some other related languages of the Far East, and the third only -two families of languages, while the second includes hundreds -of unrelated languages of the most heterogeneous character. -It seems certain that the languages of Class I represent one definite -type of linguistic structure, and it may be that Aryan and Semitic -should be classed together on account of the similarity of their -structure, though this is by no means quite certain and has been -denied (by Bopp, and in recent times by Porzezinski); but what -is indubitable is that the ‘agglutinating’ class is made to comprehend -languages of the most diverse type, even if we follow Pott -and exclude from this class all incorporating languages. Finnish -is always mentioned as a typically agglutinative language, yet -there we meet with such declensional forms as nominative <i lang="fi" xml:lang="fi">vesi</i> -‘water,’ <i lang="fi" xml:lang="fi">toinen</i> ‘second,’ partitive <i lang="fi" xml:lang="fi">vettä</i>, <i lang="fi" xml:lang="fi">toista</i>, genitive <i lang="fi" xml:lang="fi">veden</i>, -<i lang="fi" xml:lang="fi">toisen</i>, and such verbal forms as <i lang="fi" xml:lang="fi">sido-n</i> ‘I bind,’ <i lang="fi" xml:lang="fi">sido-t</i> ‘thou -bindest,’ <i lang="fi" xml:lang="fi">sito-o</i> ‘he binds,’ and the three corresponding persons -in the plural, <i lang="fi" xml:lang="fi">sido-mme</i>, <i lang="fi" xml:lang="fi">sido-tte</i>, <i lang="fi" xml:lang="fi">sito-vat</i>. Here we are far from -having one unchangeable root to which endings have been glued, -for the root itself undergoes changes before the endings. In -Kiyombe (Congo) the perfect of verbs is in many cases formed -by means of a vowel change that is a complete parallel to the -apophony in English <i>drink</i>, <i>drank</i>, thus <i>vanga</i> ‘do,’ perfect <i>venge</i>, -<i>twala</i> ‘bring,’ perfect <i>twele</i> or <i>twede</i>, etc. (<cite>Anthropos</cite>, ii. p. 761). -Examples like these show that flexion, in whatever way we may -define this term, is not the prerogative of the Aryans and Semites, -but may be found in other nations as well. ‘Agglutination’ is -either too vague a term to be used in classification, or else, if it -is taken strictly according to the usual definition, it is too definite -to comprise many of the languages which are ordinarily reckoned -to belong to the second class.</p> - -<p>It will be seen, also, that those writers who aim at giving descriptions -of a variety of human tongues, or of them all, do not content -themselves with the usual three classes, but have a greater number. -This began with Steinthal, who in various works tried to classify -languages partly from geographical, partly from structural points -of view, without, however, arriving at any definite or consistent -system. Friedrich Müller, in his great <cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Grundriss der Sprachwissenschaft</cite>, -really gives up the psychological or structural division of -languages, distributing the more than hundred different languages -that he describes among twelve races of mankind, characterized -chiefly by external criteria that have nothing to do with language. -Misteli establishes six main types: I. Incorporating. II. Root-<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_80" id="Page_80">[80]</a></span>isolating. -III. Stem-isolating. IV. Affixing (<span lang="de" xml:lang="de">Anreihende</span>). V. Agglutinating. -VI. Flexional. These he also distributes so as -to form four classes: (1) languages with sentence-words: I; -(2) languages with no words: II, III and IV; (3) languages with -apparent words: V; and (4) languages with real words: VI. -But the latter division had better be left alone; it turns on -the intricate question “What constitutes a word?” and ultimately -depends on the usual depreciation of ‘inferior races’ -and corresponding exaltation of our own race, which is alone -reputed capable of possessing ‘real words.’ I do not see why -we should not recognize that the vocables of Greenlandic, -Malay, Kafir or Finnish are just as ‘real’ words as any in -Hebrew or Latin.</p> - -<p>Our final result, then, is that the tripartition is insufficient and -inadequate to serve as a comprehensive classification of languages -actually existing. Nor shall we wonder at this if we see the way -in which the theory began historically in an <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">obiter dictum</i> of Fr. v. -Schlegel at a time when the inner structure of only a few languages -had been properly studied, and if we consider the lack of clearness -and definiteness inherent in such notions as agglutination and -flexion, which are nevertheless made the corner-stones of the -whole system. We therefore must go back to the wise saying -of Humboldt quoted on p. <a href="#Page_59">59</a>, that the structural diversities of -languages are too great for us to classify them comprehensively.</p> - -<p>In a subsequent part of this work I shall deal with the -tripartition as representing three successive stages in the -development of such languages as our own (the <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">nacheinander</i> -of Schleicher), and try to show that Schleicher’s view is not -borne out by the facts of linguistic history, which give us a -totally different picture of development.</p> - -<p>From both points of view, then, I think that the classification -here considered deserves to be shelved among the hasty -generalizations in which the history of every branch of science -is unfortunately so rich.</p> - - -<h4>III.—§ 6. Reconstruction.</h4> - -<p>Probably Schleicher’s most original and important contribution -to linguistics was his reconstruction of the Proto-Aryan language, -<i lang="de" xml:lang="de">die indogermanische ursprache</i>. The possibility of inferentially -constructing this parent language, which to Sanskrit, Greek, Latin, -Gothic, etc., was what Latin was to Italian, Spanish, French, -etc., was early in his thoughts (see quotations illustrating the -gradual growth of the idea in Oertel, p. 39 f.), but it was not -till the first edition of his <cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Compendium</cite> that he carried it out in<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_81" id="Page_81">[81]</a></span> -detail, giving there for each separate chapter (vowels, consonants, -roots, stem-formation, declension, conjugation) first the Proto-Aryan -forms and then those actually found in the different languages, -from which the former were inferred. This arrangement has the -advantage that the reader everywhere sees the historical evolution -in the natural order, beginning with the oldest and then proceeding -to the later stages, just as the Romanic scholar begins with Latin -and then takes in successive stages Old French, Modern French, -etc. But in the case of Proto-Aryan this procedure is apt to -deceive the student and make him take these primitive forms -as something certain, whose existence reposes on just as good -evidence as the forms found in Sanskrit literature or in German -or English as spoken in our own days. When he finds some forms -given first and used to <em>explain</em> some others, there is some danger -of his forgetting that the forms given first have a quite different -status to the others, and that their only <i>raison d’être</i> is the desire -of a modern linguist to explain existing forms in related languages -which present certain similarities as originating from a common -original form, which he does not find in his texts and has, therefore, -to reconstruct. But apart from this there can be no doubt -that the reconstruction of older forms (and the ingenious device, -due to Schleicher, of denoting such forms by means of a preposed -asterisk to distinguish them from forms actually found) has been -in many ways beneficial to historical grammar. Only it may -be questioned whether Schleicher did not go too far when he wished -to base the whole grammar of all the Aryan languages on such -reconstructions, instead of using them now and then to explain -single facts.</p> - -<p>Schleicher even ventured (and in this he seems to have had no -follower) to construct an entire little fable in primitive Aryan: -see “<span lang="de" xml:lang="de">Eine fabel in indogermanischer ursprache</span>,” <cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Beiträge zur vergl. -sprachforschung</cite>, 5. 206 (1868). In the introductory remarks he -complains of the difficulty of such attempts, chiefly because of -the almost complete lack of particles capable of being inferred -from the existing languages, but he seems to have entertained -no doubt about the phonetic and grammatical forms of the words -he employed. As the fable is not now commonly known, I give -it here, with Schleicher’s translation, as a document of this period -of comparative linguistics.</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p class="center" >AVIS AKVASAS KA</p> - -<p>Avis, jasmin varna na ā ast, dadarka akvams, tam, vāgham -garum vaghantam, tam, bhāram magham, tam, manum āku -bharantam. Avis akvabhjams ā vavakat: kard aghnutai mai -vidanti manum akvams agantam.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_82" id="Page_82">[82]</a></span></p> - -<p>Akvāsas ā vavakant: krudhi avai, kard aghnutai vividvantsvas: -manus patis varnām avisāms karnanti svabhjam gharmam -vastram avibhjams ka varnā na asti.</p> - -<p>Tat kukruvants avis agram ā bhugat.</p> - - -<p class="center">[DAS] SCHAF UND [DIE] ROSSE</p> - -<p>[Ein] schaf, [auf] welchem wolle nicht war (ein geschorenes -schaf) sah rosse, das [einen] schweren wagen fahrend, das [eine] -grosse last, das [einen] menschen schnell tragend. [Das] schaf -sprach [zu den] rossen: [Das] herz wird beengt [in] mir (es thut -mir herzlich leid), sehend [den] menschen [die] rosse treibend.</p> - -<p>[Die] rosse sprachen: Höre schaf, [das] herz wird beengt [in -den] gesehend-habenden (es thut uns herzlich leid, da wir wissen): -[der] mensch, [der] herr macht [die] wolle [der] schafe [zu einem] -warmen kleide [für] sich und [den] schafen ist nicht wolle (die -schafe aber haben keine wolle mehr, sie werden geschoren; es -geht ihnen noch schlechter als den rossen).</p> - -<p>Dies gehört habend bog (entwich) [das] schaf [auf das] feld -(es machte sich aus dem staube).</p></div> - -<p>The question here naturally arises: Is it possible in the way -initiated by Schleicher to reconstruct extinct linguistic stages, -and what degree of probability can be attached to the forms thus -created by linguists? The answer certainly must be that in some -instances the reconstruction may have a very strong degree of -probability, namely, if the data on which it is based are unambiguous -and the form to be reconstructed is not far removed -from that or those actually found; but that otherwise any reconstruction -becomes doubtful, and naturally the more so according -to the extent of the reconstruction (as when a whole text is constructed) -and to the distance in time that intervenes between the -known and the unknown stage. If we look at the genitives of -Lat. <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">genus</i> and Gr. <i>génos</i>, which are found as <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">generis</i> and <i>génous</i>, -it is easy to see that both presuppose a form with <i>s</i> between two -vowels, as we see a great many intervocalic <i>s</i>’s becoming <i>r</i> in Latin -and disappearing in Greek; but when Schleicher gives as the -prototype of both (and of corresponding forms in the other languages) -Aryan <i>ganasas</i>, he oversteps the limits of the permissible -in so far as he ascribes to the vowels definite sounds not really -warranted by the known forms. If we knew the modern Scandinavian -languages and English only, we should not hesitate to -give to the Proto-Gothonic genitive of the word for ‘mother’ -the ending <i>-s</i>, cf. Dan. <i lang="da" xml:lang="da">moders</i>, E. <i>mother’s</i>; but G. <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">der mutter</i> -suffices to show that the conclusion is not safe, and as a matter -of fact, both in Old Norse and in Old English the genitive of this<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_83" id="Page_83">[83]</a></span> -word is without an <i>s</i>. An analogous case is presented when -Schleicher reconstructs the nom. of the word for ‘father’ as -<i>patars</i>, because he presupposes <i>-s</i> as the invariable sign of every -nom. sg. masc., although in this particular word not a single one -of the old languages has <i>-s</i> in the nominative. All Schleicher’s -reconstructions are based on the assumption that Primitive Aryan -had a very simple structure, only few consonant and fewer vowel -sounds, and great regularity in morphology; but, as we shall see, -this assumption is completely gratuitous and was exploded only -a few years after his death. Gabelentz (Spr 182), therefore, was -right when he said, with a certain irony, that the Aryan <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">ursprache</i> -had changed beyond recognition in the short time between -Schleicher and Brugmann. The moral to be drawn from all -this seems to be that hypothetical and starred forms should be -used sparingly and with the extremest caution.</p> - -<p>With regard to inferential forms denoted by a star, the following -note may not be out of place here. Their purely theoretical -character is not always realized. An example will illustrate what -I mean. If etymological dictionaries give as the origin of F. -<i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">ménage</i> (OF. <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">maisnage</i>) a Latin form *<i lang="la" xml:lang="la">mansionaticum</i>, the etymology -may be correct although such a Latin word may never at any -time have been uttered. The word was framed at some date, -no one knows exactly when, from the word which at various -times had the forms (acc.) <i>mansionem</i>, *<i>masione</i>, <i>maison</i>, by -means of the ending which at first had the form <i>-aticum</i> (as -in <i>viaticum</i>), and finally (through several intermediate stages) -became <i>-age</i>; but at what stage of each the two elements met to -make the word which eventually became <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">ménage</i>, no one can tell, -so that the only thing really asserted is that <em>if</em> the word had been -formed at a very early date (which is far from probable) it would -have been <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">mansionaticum</i>. It would, therefore, perhaps be more -correct to say that the word is from <i>mansione</i> + <i>-aticum</i>.</p> - - -<h4>III.—§ 7. Curtius, Madvig, and Specialists.</h4> - -<p>Second only to Schleicher among the linguists of those days -was Georg Curtius (1820-85), at one time his colleague in the -University of Prague. Curtius’s special study was Greek, and his -books on the Greek verb and on Greek etymology cleared up a -great many doubtful points; he also contributed very much to -bridge the gulf between classical philology and Aryan linguistics. -His views on general questions were embodied in the book <cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Zur -Chronologie der indogermanischen Sprachforschung</cite> (1873). While -Schleicher died when his fame was at its highest and his theories -were seemingly victorious in all the leading circles, Curtius had<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_84" id="Page_84">[84]</a></span> -the misfortune to see a generation of younger men, including some -of his own best disciples, such as Brugmann, advance theories that -seemed to him to be in conflict with the most essential principles -of his cherished science; and though he himself, like Schleicher, -had always been in favour of a stricter observance of sound-laws -than his predecessors, his last book was a polemic against -those younger scholars who carried the same point to the excess -of admitting no exceptions at all, who believed in innumerable -analogical formations even in the old languages, and whose reconstructions -of primitive forms appeared to the old man as -deprived of that classical beauty of the <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">ursprache</i> which was -represented in his own and Schleicher’s works (<cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Zur Kritik der -neuesten Sprachforschung</cite>, 1885). But this is anticipating.</p> - -<p>If Curtius was a comparativist with a sound knowledge of -classical philology, Johan Nikolai Madvig was pre-eminently a -classical philologist who took a great interest in general linguistics -and brought his critical acumen and sober common sense to bear -on many of the problems that exercised the minds of his contemporaries. -He was opposed to everything of a vague and mystical -nature in the current theories of language and disliked the tendency -of some scholars to find deep-lying mysterious powers at the root -of linguistic phenomena. But he probably went too far in his -rationalism, for example, when he entirely denied the existence -of the sound-symbolism on which Humboldt had expatiated. -He laid much stress on the identity of the linguistic faculty in -all ages: the first speakers had no more intention than people -to-day of creating anything systematic or that would be good -for all times and all occasions—they could have no other object -in view than that of making themselves understood at the moment; -hence the want of system which we find everywhere in languages: -a different number of cases in singular and plural, different endings, -etc. Madvig did not escape some inconsistencies, as when he -himself would explain the use of the soft vowel <i>a</i> to denote the -feminine gender by a kind of sound-symbolism, or when he thought -it possible to determine in what order the different grammatical -ideas presented themselves to primitive man (tense relation first -in the verb, number before case in the noun). He attached too -little value to phonological and etymological research, but on -the whole his views were sounder than many which were set forth -on the same subjects at the time; his papers, however, were very -little known, partly because they were written in Danish, partly -because his style was extremely heavy and difficult, and when -he finally brought out his <cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Kleine philologische schriften</cite> in German -(1875), he expressed his regret in the preface at finding that -many of the theories he had put forward years before in Danish<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_85" id="Page_85">[85]</a></span> -had in the meantime been independently arrived at by Whitney, -who had had the advantage of expressing them in a world-language.</p> - -<p>One of the most important features of the period with which -we are here dealing is the development of a number of special -branches of historical linguistics on a comparative basis. Curtius’s -work on Greek might be cited as one example; in the same way -there were specialists in Sanskrit (Westergaard and Benfey among -others), in Slavonic (Miklosich and Schleicher), in Keltic (Zeuss), -etc. Grimm had numerous followers in the Gothonic or Germanic -field, while in Romanic philology there was an active and flourishing -school, headed by Friedrich Diez, whose <cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Grammatik der romanischen -Sprachen</cite> and <cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Etymologisches Wörterbuch der romanischen Sprachen</cite> -were perhaps the best introduction to the methodical study of -linguistics that anyone could desire; the writer of these lines -looks back with the greatest gratitude to that period of his youth -when he had the good fortune to make the acquaintance of these -truly classical works. Everything was so well arranged, so carefully -thought out and so lucidly explained, that one had everywhere -the pleasant feeling that one was treading on firm ground, -the more so as the basis of the whole was not an artificially constructed -nebulous <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">ursprache</i>, but the familiar forms and words of -an historical language. Here one witnessed the gradual differentiation -of Latin into seven or eight distinct languages, whose -development it was possible to follow century by century in well-authenticated -texts. The picture thus displayed before one’s -eyes of actual linguistic growth in all domains—sounds, forms, -word-formation, syntax—and (a very important corollary) of the -interdependence of these domains, could not but leave a very -strong impression—not merely enthusiasm for what had been -achieved here, but also a salutary skepticism of theories in other -fields which had not a similarly solid basis.</p> - - -<h4>III.—§ 8. Max Müller and Whitney.</h4> - -<p>Working, as we have seen, in many fields, linguists had now -brought to light a shoal of interesting facts affecting a great many -languages and had put forth valuable theories to explain these -facts; but most of their work remained difficult of access except -to the specialist, and very little was done by the experts to impart -to educated people in general those results of the new science -which might be enjoyed without deeper study. But in 1861 Max -Müller gave the first series of those <cite>Lectures on the Science of -Language</cite> which, in numerous editions, did more than anything -else to popularize linguistics and served to initiate a great many -students into our science. In many ways these lectures were<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_86" id="Page_86">[86]</a></span> -excellently adapted for this purpose, for the author had a certain -knack of selecting interesting illustrations and of presenting his -subject in a way that tended to create the same enthusiasm for -it that he felt himself. But his arguments do not bear a close -inspection. Too often, after stating a problem, he is found to fly -off at a tangent and to forget what he has set out to prove for the -sake of an interesting etymology or a clever paradox. He gives an -uncritical acceptance to many of Schleicher’s leading ideas; thus, -the science of linguistics is to him a physical science and has -nothing to do with philology, which is an historical science. If, -however, we look at the book itself, we shall find that everything -that he counts on to secure the interest of his reader, everything -that made his lectures so popular, is really non-naturalistic: all -those brilliant exposés of word-history are really like historical -anecdotes in a book on social evolution; they may have some -bearing on the fundamental problems, but these are rarely or -never treated as real problems of natural science. Nor does he, -when taken to task, maintain his view very seriously, but partly -retracts it and half-heartedly ensconces himself behind the dictum -that everything depends on the definition you give of “physical -science” (see especially Ch 234, 442, 497)—thus calling forth -Whitney’s retort that “the implication here is that our author -has a right at his own good pleasure to lay down such a definition -of a physical science as should make the name properly applicable -to the study of this particular one among the products of human -capacities.... So he may prove that a whale is a fish, if you only -allow him to define what a fish is” (M 23 f.).</p> - -<p>Though Schleicher and Max Müller in their own day had few -followers in defining linguistics as a natural or physical science—the -opposite view was taken, for instance, by Curtius (K 154), -Madvig and Whitney—there can be no doubt that the naturalistic -point of view practically, though perhaps chiefly unconsciously, -had wide-reaching effects on the history of linguistic science. It -was intimately connected with the problems chiefly investigated -and with the way in which they were treated. From Grimm -through Pott to Schleicher and his contemporaries we see a growing -interest in phonological comparisons; more and more “sound-laws” -were discovered, and those found were more and more -rigorously applied, with the result that etymological investigation -was attended with a degree of exactness of which former generations -had no idea. But as these phonological studies were not, -as a rule, based on a real, penetrating insight into the nature -of speech-sounds, the work of the etymologist tended more and -more to be purely mechanical, and the science of language was -to a great extent deprived of those elements which are more<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_87" id="Page_87">[87]</a></span> -intimately connected with the human ‘soul.’ Isolated vowels -and consonants were compared, isolated flexional forms and isolated -words were treated more and more in detail and explained -by other isolated forms and words in other languages, all of them -being like dead leaves shaken off a tree rather than parts of a -living and moving whole. The speaking individual and the speaking -community were too much lost sight of. Too often comparativists -gained a considerable acquaintance with the sound-laws -and the grammatical forms of various languages without knowing -much about those languages themselves, or at any rate without -possessing any degree of familiarity with them. Schleicher was -not blind to the danger of this. A short time before his death -he brought out an <cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Indogermanische Chrestomathie</cite> (Weimar, 1869), -and in the preface he justifies his book by saying that “it is of -great value, besides learning the grammar, to be acquainted, however -slightly, with the languages themselves. For a comparative -grammar of related languages lays stress on what is common to -a language and its sisters; consequently, the languages may appear -more alike than they are in reality, and their idiosyncrasies may -be thrown into the shade. Linguistic specimens form, therefore, -an indispensable supplement to comparative grammar.” Other -and even more weighty reasons might have been adduced, for -grammar is after all only one side of a language, and it is certainly -the best plan, if one wants to understand and appreciate the -position of any language, to start with some connected texts -of tolerable length, and only afterwards to see how its forms are -related to and may be explained by those of other languages.</p> - -<p>Though the mechanical school of linguists, with whom historical -and comparative phonology was more and more an end in itself, -prevailed to a great extent, the trend of a few linguists was different. -Among these one must especially mention Heymann Steinthal, -who drew his inspiration from Humboldt and devoted numerous -works to the psychology of language. Unfortunately, Steinthal was -greatly inferior to Schleicher in clearness and consistency of -thought: “When I read a work of Steinthal’s, and even many -parts of Humboldt, I feel as if walking through shifting clouds,” -Max Müller remarks, with good reason, in a letter (<cite>Life</cite>, i. 256). -This obscurity, in connexion with the remoteness of Steinthal’s -studies, which ranged from Chinese to the language of the Mande -negroes, but paid little regard to European languages, prevented -him from exerting any powerful influence on the linguistic thought -of his generation, except perhaps through his emphatic assertion -of the truth that language can only be understood and explained -by means of psychology: his explanation of syntactic attraction -paved the way for much in Paul’s <cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Prinzipien</cite>.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_88" id="Page_88">[88]</a></span></p> - -<p>The leading exponent of general linguistics after the death of -Schleicher was the American William Dwight Whitney, whose -books, <cite>Language and the Study of Language</cite> (first ed. 1867) and -its replica, <cite>The Life and Growth of Language</cite> (1875), were translated -into several languages and were hardly less popular than those -of his antagonist, Max Müller. Whitney’s style is less brilliant -than Max Müller’s, and he scorns the cheap triumphs which the -latter gains by the multiplication of interesting illustrations; -he never wearies of running down Müller’s paradoxes and inconsistencies,<a name="FNanchor_14_14" id="FNanchor_14_14"></a><a href="#Footnote_14_14" class="fnanchor">[14]</a> -from which he himself was spared by his greater general -solidity and sobriety of thought. The chief point of divergence -between them was, as already indicated, that Whitney looked -upon language as a human institution that has grown slowly out -of the necessity for mutual understanding; he was opposed to all -kinds of mysticism, and words to him were conventional signs—not, -of course, that he held that there ever was a gathering of -people that settled the meaning of each word, but in the sense -of “resting on a mutual understanding or a community of habit,” -no matter how brought about. But in spite of all differences -between the two they are in many respects alike, when viewed from -the coign of vantage of the twentieth century: both give expression -to the best that had been attained by fifty or sixty years of -painstaking activity to elucidate the mysteries of speech, and -especially of Aryan words and forms, and neither of them was -deeply original enough to see through many of the fallacies of the -young science. Consequently, their views on the structure of -Proto-Aryan, on roots and their rôle, on the building-up and decay -of the form-system, are essentially the same as those of their contemporaries, -and many of their theories have now crumbled away, -including much of what they probably thought firmly rooted for -all time.</p> - - -<div class="chapter"> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_89" id="Page_89">[89]</a></span></p> - - - - -<h3 class="nobreak"><a name="CHAPTER_IV" id="CHAPTER_IV">CHAPTER IV</a><br /> - -<span class="larger">END OF NINETEENTH CENTURY</span></h3> -</div> - -<div class="blockquot chaptersummary"> - -<p>§ 1. Achievements about 1870. § 2. New Discoveries. § 3. Phonetic Laws -and Analogy. § 4. General Tendencies.</p></div> - - -<h4>IV.—§ 1. Achievements about 1870.</h4> - -<p>In works of this period one frequently meets with expressions -of pride and joy in the wonderful results that had been achieved -in comparative linguistics in the course of a few decades. Thus -Max Müller writes: “All this becomes clear and intelligible by -the light of Comparative Grammar; anomalies vanish, exceptions -prove the rule, and we perceive more plainly every day -how in language, as elsewhere, the conflict between the freedom -claimed by each individual and the resistance offered by the -community at large establishes in the end a reign of law most -wonderful, yet perfectly rational and intelligible”; and again: -“There is nothing accidental, nothing irregular, nothing without -a purpose and meaning in any part of Greek or Latin grammar. -No one who has once discovered this hidden life of language, -no one who has once found out that what seemed to be merely -anomalous and whimsical in language is but, as it were, a -petrification of thought, of deep, curious, poetical, philosophical -thought, will ever rest again till he has descended as far as he -can descend into the ancient shafts of human speech,” etc. -(Ch 41 f.). Whitney says: “The difference between the old -haphazard style of etymologizing and the modern scientific -method lies in this: that the latter, while allowing everything -to be theoretically possible, accepts nothing as actual which -is not proved by sufficient evidence; it brings to bear upon -each individual case a wide circle of related facts; it imposes -upon the student the necessity of extended comparison -and cautious deduction; it makes him careful to inform himself -as thoroughly as circumstances allow respecting the history of -every word he deals with” (L 386). And Benfey, in his -<cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Geschichte der Sprachwissenschaft</cite> (1869, see pp. 562 f. and 596), -arrives at the conclusion that the investigation of Aryan languages -has already attained a very great degree of certainty, and that -the reconstruction of Primitive Aryan, both in grammar and<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_90" id="Page_90">[90]</a></span> -vocabulary, must be considered as in the main settled in such -a way that only some details are still doubtful; thus, it is certain -that the first person singular ended in <i>-mi</i>, and that this is a -phonetic reduction of the pronoun <i>ma</i>, and that the word for -‘horse’ was <i>akva</i>. This feeling of pride is certainly in a great -measure justified if we compare the achievements of linguistic -science at that date with the etymologies of the eighteenth -century; it must also be acknowledged that 90 per cent. -of the etymologies in the best-known Aryan languages which -must be recognized as established beyond any reasonable doubt -had already been discovered before 1870, while later investigations -have only added a small number that may be considered -firmly established, together with a great many more or less -doubtful collocations. But, on the other hand, in the light of -later research, we can now see that much of what was then considered -firm as a rock did not deserve the implicit trust then -placed in it.</p> - - -<h4>IV.—§ 2. New Discoveries.</h4> - -<p>This is true in the first place with regard to the phonetic -structure ascribed to Proto-Aryan. A series of brilliant discoveries -made about the year 1880 profoundly modified the -views of scholars about the consonantal and still more about -the vocalic system of our family of languages. This is particularly -true of the so-called palatal law.<a name="FNanchor_15_15" id="FNanchor_15_15"></a><a href="#Footnote_15_15" class="fnanchor">[15]</a> So long as it was -taken for granted that Sanskrit had in all essential points preserved -the ancient sound system, while Greek and the other -languages represented younger stages, no one could explain why -Sanskrit in some cases had the palatals <i>c</i> and <i>j</i> (sounds approximately -like the initial sounds of E. <i>chicken</i> and <i>joy</i>) where -the other languages have the velar sounds <i>k</i> and <i>g</i>. It was now -recognized that so far from the distribution of the two classes -of sounds in Sanskrit being arbitrary, it followed strict rules,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_91" id="Page_91">[91]</a></span> -though these were not to be seen from Sanskrit itself. Where -Sanskrit <i>a</i> following the consonant corresponded to Greek or -Latin <i>o</i>, Sanskrit had velar <i>k</i> or <i>g</i>; where, on the other hand, -it corresponded to Greek or Latin <i>e</i>, Sanskrit had palatal <i>c</i> or <i>j</i>. -Thus we have, for instance, <i>c</i> in Sansk. <i>ca</i>, ‘and’ = Greek <i>te</i>, -Lat. <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">que</i>, but <i>k</i> in <i>kakša</i> = Lat. <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">coxa</i>; the difference between -the two consonants in a perfect like <i>cakara</i>, ‘have done,’ is -dependent on the same vowel alternation as that of Greek -<i>léloipa</i>; <i>c</i> in the verb <i>pacati</i>, ‘cooks,’ as against <i>k</i> in the substantive -<i>pakas</i>, ‘cooking,’ corresponds to the vowels in Greek -<i>légei</i> as against <i>lógos</i>, etc. All this shows that Sanskrit itself -must once have had the vowels <i>e</i> and <i>o</i> instead of <i>a</i>; before the -front vowel <i>e</i> the consonant has then been fronted or palatalized, -as <i>ch</i> in E. <i>chicken</i> is due to the following front vowel, while -<i>k</i> has been preserved before <i>o</i> in <i>cock</i>. Sanskrit is thus shown -to be in some important respects less conservative than Greek, -a truth which was destined profoundly to modify many theories -concerning the whole family of languages. As Curtius said, -with some resentment of the change in view then taking place, -“Sanskrit, once the oracle of the rising science and trusted -blindly, is now put on one side; instead of the traditional <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">ex -oriente lux</i> the saying is now <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">in oriente tenebræ</i>” (K 97).</p> - -<p>The new views held in regard to Aryan vowels also resulted -in a thorough revision of the theory of apophony (ablaut). The -great mass of Aryan vowel alternations were shown to form a -vast and singularly consistent system, the main features of which -may be gathered from the following tabulation of a few select -Greek examples, arranged into three columns, each representing -one ‘grade’:</p> - - -<div class="center"> -<table class="left" border="0" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" summary=""> -<tr><td></td><td class="center">I </td><td class="center"> II </td><td class="center">III</td></tr> -<tr><td>(1)</td><td> pétomai</td><td>pótē</td><td>eptómai</td></tr> -<tr><td></td><td>(s)ékhō </td><td>(s)ókhos </td><td> éskhon</td></tr> -<tr><td>(2)</td><td> leípō</td><td>léloipa</td><td>élipon</td></tr> -<tr><td>(3)</td><td> peúthomai</td><td class="center">—</td><td>eputhómēn</td></tr> -<tr><td>(4)</td><td> dérkomai</td><td>dédorka</td><td>édrakon</td></tr> -<tr><td>(5)</td><td> teínō (*tenjo)</td><td>tónos</td><td>tatós</td></tr> -</table></div> - -<p>It is outside our scope to show how this scheme gives us a -natural clue to the vowels in such verbs as E. I <i>ride</i>, II <i>rode</i>, III -<i>ridden</i> (2), G. I <i>werde</i>, II <i>ward</i>, III <i>geworden</i> (4), or I <i>binde</i>, II <i>band</i>, -III <i>gebunden</i> (5). It will be seen from the Greek examples that -grade I is throughout characterized by the vowel <i>e</i> and grade -II by the vowel <i>o</i>; as for grade III, the vowel of I and II has -entirely disappeared in (1), where there is no vowel between the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_92" id="Page_92">[92]</a></span> -two consonants, and in (2) and (3), where the element found -after <i>e</i> and <i>o</i> and forming a diphthong with these has now -become a full (syllabic) vowel <i>i</i> and <i>u</i> by itself. In (4) Sanskrit -has in grade III a syllabic <i>r</i> (<i>adrçam</i> = Gr. <i>édrakon</i>), while -Greek has <i>ra</i>, or in some instances <i>ar</i>, and Gothonic has <i>ur</i> or <i>or</i> -according to the vowel of the following syllable. It was this -fact that suggested to Brugmann his theory that in (5) Greek <i>a</i>, -Lat. <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">in</i>, Goth. <i>un</i> in the third grade originated in syllabic <i>ṇ</i>, and -that <i>tatós</i> thus stood for *<i>tṇtós</i>; he similarly explained Gr. <i>déka</i>, -Lat. <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">decem</i>, Gothic <i>taihun</i>, E. <i>ten</i> from *<i>dekṃ</i> with syllabic <i>m</i>. -I do not believe that his theory is entirely correct; but so -much is certain, that in all instances grade III is characterized -by a reduction of the vowel that appears in the two other -grades as <i>e</i> and <i>o</i>, and there can be no doubt that this reduction -is due to want of stress. This being so, it becomes impossible -to consider <i>lip</i> the original root-form, which in <i>leip</i> and <i>loip</i> has -been extended, and the new theory of apophony thus disposes -of the old theory, based on the Indian grammarians’ view that -the shortest form was the root-form, which was then raised -through ‘guna’ and ‘vrddhi.’ This now is reversed, and the -fuller form is shown to be the oldest, which in some cases was -shortened according to a process paralleled in many living -languages. Bopp was right in his rejection of Grimm’s theory -of an inner, significatory reason for apophony, as apophony is -now shown to have been due to a mechanical cause, though a -different one from that suggested by Bopp (see above, p. <a href="#Page_53">53</a>); -and Grimm was also wrong in another respect, because apophony -is found from the first in noun-formations as well as in verbs, -where Grimm believed it to have been instituted to indicate -tense differences, with which it had originally nothing to do. -Apophony even appears in other syllables than the root syllable; -the new view thus quite naturally paved the way for skepticism -with regard to the old doctrine that Aryan roots were necessarily -monosyllabic; and scholars soon began to admit dissyllabic -‘bases’ in place of the old roots; instead of <i>lip</i>, the earliest -accessible form thus came to be something like <i>leipo</i> or <i>leipe</i>. -In this way the new vowel system had far-reaching consequences -and made linguists look upon many problems in a new light. It -should be noted, however, that the mechanical explanation of -apophony from difference in accent applies only to grade III, in -contradistinction to grades I and II; the reason of the alternation -between the <i>e</i> of I and the <i>o</i> of II is by no means clear.</p> - -<p>The investigations leading to the discovery of the palatal -law and the new theory of apophony were only a part of the -immense labour of a number of able linguists in the ’seventies<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_93" id="Page_93">[93]</a></span> -and ’eighties, which cleared up many obscure points in Aryan -phonology and morphology. One of the most famous discoveries -was that of the Dane Karl Verner, that a whole series -of consonant alternations in the old Gothonic languages was -dependent on accent, and (more remarkable still) on the primeval -accent, preserved in its oldest form in Sanskrit only, and -differing from that of modern Gothonic languages in resting in -some instances on the ending and in others on the root. When -it was realized that the fact that German has <i>t</i> in <i>vater</i>, but <i>d</i> -in <i>bruder</i>, was due to a different accentuation of the two words -three or four thousand years ago, or that the difference between -<i>s</i> and <i>r</i> in E. <i>was</i> and <i>were</i> was connected with the fact that perfect -singulars in Sanskrit are stressed on the root, but plurals on -the ending, this served not only to heighten respect for the -linguistic science that was able to demonstrate such truths, but -also to increase the feeling that the world of sounds was subject -to strict laws comparable to those of natural science.</p> - - -<h4>IV.—§ 3. Phonetic Laws and Analogy.</h4> - -<p>The ‘blind’ operation of phonetic laws became the chief -tenet of a new school of ‘young-grammarians’ or ‘<span lang="de" xml:lang="de">junggrammatiker</span>’ -(Brugmann, Delbrück, Osthoff, Paul and others), who -somewhat noisily flourished their advance upon earlier linguists -and justly roused the anger not only of their own teachers, -including Curtius, but also of fellow-students like Johannes -Schmidt and Collitz. For some years a fierce discussion took -place on the principles of linguistic science, in which young-grammarians -tried to prove deductively the truth of their -favourite thesis that “Sound-laws admit of no exceptions” -(first, it seems, enounced by Leskien). Osthoff wrongly maintained -that sound changes belonged to physiology and analogical -change to psychology; but though that distribution of the two -kinds of change to two different domains was untenable, the -distinction in itself was important and proved a valuable, -though perhaps sometimes too easy instrument in the hands -of the historical grammarian. It was quite natural that those -who insisted on undeviating phonetic laws should turn their -attention to those cases in which forms appeared that did not -conform to these laws, and try to explain them; and thus they -inevitably were led to recognize the immense importance of analogical -formations in the economy of all languages. Such formations -had long been known, but little attention had been paid -to them, and they were generally termed ‘false analogies’ and -looked upon as corruptions or inorganic formations found only<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_94" id="Page_94">[94]</a></span> -or chiefly in a degenerate age, in which the true meaning and -composition of the old forms was no longer understood. Men -like Curtius were scandalized at the younger school explaining -so many even of the noble forms of ancient Greek as due to this -upstart force of analogy. His opponents contended that the -name of ‘false analogy’ was wrong and misleading: the analogy -in itself was perfect and was handled with unerring instinct in -each case. They likewise pointed out that analogical formations, -so far from being perversions of a late age, really represented one -of the vital principles of language, without which it could never -have come into existence.</p> - -<p>One of the first to take the new point of view and to explain -it clearly was Hermann Paul. I quote from an early article -(as translated by Sweet, CP 112) the following passages, which -really struck a new note in linguistic theory:</p> - -<p>“There is one simple fact which should never be left out of -sight, namely, that even in the parent Indogermanic language, -long before its split-up, there were no longer any roots, stems, -and suffixes, but only ready-made <em>words</em>, which were employed -without the slightest thought of their composite nature. And -it is only of such ready-made words that the store is composed -from which everyone draws when he speaks. He has no stock -of stems and terminations at his disposal from which he could -construct the form required for each separate occasion. Not -that he must necessarily have heard and learnt by heart every -form he uses. This would, in fact, be impossible. He is, on the -contrary, able of himself to form cases of nouns, tenses of verbs, etc., -which he has either never heard or else not noticed specially; -but, as there is no combining of stem and suffix, this can only -be done on the pattern of the other ready-made combinations -which he has learnt from his fellows. These latter are first -learnt one by one, and then gradually associated into groups -which correspond to the grammatical categories, but are never -clearly conceived as such without special training. This grouping -not only greatly aids the memory, but also makes it possible to -produce other combinations. And this is what we call <em>analogy</em>.”</p> - -<p>“It is, therefore, clear that, while speaking, everyone is -incessantly producing analogical forms. <em>Reproduction by memory</em> -and <em>new-formation by means of association</em> are its two indispensable -factors. It is a mistake to assume a language as given -in grammar and dictionary, that is, the whole body of possible -words and forms, as something concrete, and to forget that it -is nothing but an abstraction devoid of reality, and that <em>the -actual language exists only in the individual</em>, from whom it cannot -be separated even in scientific investigation, if we will understand<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_95" id="Page_95">[95]</a></span> -its nature and development. To comprehend the existence of -each separate spoken form, we must not ask ‘Is it current in the -language?’ or ‘Is it conformable to the laws of the language -as deduced by the grammarians?’ but ‘Has he who has just -employed it previously had it in his memory, or has he formed -it himself for the first time, and, if so, according to what analogy?’ -When, for instance, anyone employs the plural <i>milben</i> -in German, it may be that he has learnt it from others, or else -that he has only heard the singular <i>milbe</i>, but knows that such -words as <i>lerche</i>, <i>schwalbe</i>, etc., form their plural <i>lerchen</i>, etc., so -that the association <i>milbe</i>-<i>milben</i> is unconsciously suggested to -him. He may also have heard the plural <i>milben</i>, but remembers -it so imperfectly that he would forget it entirely were it not -associated in his mind with a series of similar forms which help -him to recall it. It is, therefore, often difficult to determine the -share memory and creative fancy have had in each separate -case.”</p> - -<p>Linguists thus set about it seriously to think of language in -terms of speaking individuals, who have learnt their mother-tongue -in the ordinary way, and who now employ it in their -daily intercourse with other men and women, without in each -separate case knowing what they owe to others and what they -have to create on the spur of the moment. Just as Sokrates -fetched philosophy down from the skies, so also now linguists -fetched words and forms down from vocabularies and grammars -and placed them where their natural home is, in the minds and -on the lips of ordinary men who are neither lexicographers nor -grammarians, but who nevertheless master their language with -sufficient ease and correctness for all ordinary purposes. Linguists -now were confronted with some general problems which had not -greatly troubled their predecessors (with the solitary exception -of Bredsdorff, whose work was entirely overlooked), namely, -What are the causes of changes in language? How are they -brought about, and how should they be classified? Many -articles on these questions appeared in linguistic periodicals about -the year 1880, but the profoundest and fullest treatment was -found in a masterly book by H. Paul, <cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Prinzipien der Sprachgeschichte</cite>, -the first edition of which (1880) exercised a very considerable -influence on linguistic thought, while the subsequent -editions were constantly enlarged and improved so as to contain -a wealth of carefully sifted material to illustrate the various processes -of linguistic change. It should also be noted that Paul -paid more and more attention to syntax, and that this part of -grammar, which had been neglected by Bopp and Schleicher -and their contemporaries, was about this time taken up by some<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_96" id="Page_96">[96]</a></span> -of the leading linguists, who showed that the comparative and -historical method was capable of throwing a flood of light on -syntax no less than on morphology (Delbrück, Ziemer).</p> - - -<h4>IV.—§ 4. General Tendencies.</h4> - -<p>While linguists in the ’eighties were taking up, as we have -seen, a great many questions of vast general importance that had -not been treated by the older generation, on the other hand they -were losing interest in some of the problems that had occupied -their predecessors. This was the case with the question of the -ultimate origin of grammatical endings. So late as 1869 Benfey -included among Bopp’s ‘brilliant discoveries’ his theory that -the <i>s</i> of the aorist and of the future was derived from the verb -<i>as</i>, ‘to be,’ and that the endings of the Latin imperfect <i>-bam</i> -and future <i>-bo</i> were from the synonymous verb <i>fu</i> = Sanskrit -<i>bhu</i> (Gesch 377), and the next year Raumer reckons the same -theories among Bopp’s ‘most important discoveries.’ But soon -after this we see that speculations of this kind somehow go out -of fashion. One of the last books to indulge in them to any -extent is Scherer’s once famous <cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Zur Geschichte der deutschen -Sprache</cite> (2nd ed., 1878), in the eighth chapter of which the writer -disports himself among primitive roots, endings, prepositions -and pronouns, which he identifies and differentiates with such -extreme boldness and confidence in his own wild fancies that -a sober-minded man of the twentieth century cannot but feel -dazed and giddy. The ablest linguists of the new school simply -left these theories aside: no new explanations of the same -description were advanced, and the old ones were not substantiated -by the ascertained phenomena of living languages. -So much was found in these of the most absorbing interest that -scholars ceased to care for what might lie behind Proto-Aryan; -some even went so far as to deprecate in strong expressions any -attempts at what they termed ‘glottogonic’ theories. To these -matter-of-fact linguists all speculations as to the ultimate origin -of language were futile and nebulous, a verdict which might be -in no small degree justified by much of what had been written -on the subject by quasi-philosophers and quasi-linguists. The -aversion to these questions was shown as early as 1866, when -<span lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">La Société de Linguistique</span> was founded in Paris. Section 2 of -the statutes of the Society expressly states that “<span lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">La Société -n’admet aucune communication concernant, soit l’origine du -langage, soit la création d’une langue universelle</span>”—both of them -questions which, as they <em>can</em> be treated in a scientific spirit, -should not be left exclusively to dilettanti.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_97" id="Page_97">[97]</a></span></p> - -<p>The last forty years have witnessed an extraordinary activity -on the part of scholars in investigating all domains of the Aryan -languages in the light of the new general views and by the aid -of the methods that have now become common property. -Phonological investigations have no doubt had the lion’s share -and have to a great extent been signalized by that real insight -into physiological phonetics which had been wanting in earlier -linguists; but very much excellent work has also been done in -morphology, syntax and semantics; and in all these domains -much has been gained by considering words not as mere isolated -units, but as parts of sentences, or, better, of connected speech. -In phonetics more and more attention has been paid to sentence -phonetics and ‘sandhi phenomena’; the heightened interest in -everything concerning ‘accent’ (stress and pitch) has also led -to investigations of sentence-stress and sentence-melody; the -intimate connexion between forms and their use or function in -the sentence, in other words their syntax, has been more and -more recognized; and finally, if semantics (the study of the significations -of words) has become a real science instead of being a -curiosity shop of isolated specimens, this has only been rendered -possible through seeing words as connected with other words to -form complete utterances. But this change of attitude could -not have been brought about unless linguists had studied texts -in the different languages to a far greater extent than had been -done in previous periods; thus, naturally, the antagonism formerly -often felt between the linguistic and the purely philological study -of the same language has tended to disappear, and many scholars -have produced work both in their particular branch of linguistics -and in the corresponding philology. There can be no doubt that -this development has been profitable to both domains of scientific -activity.</p> - -<p>Another beneficial change is the new attitude taken with -regard to the study of living speech. The science of linguistics -had long stood in the sign of Cancer and had been constantly -looking backwards—to its own great loss. Now, with the greater -stress laid on phonetics and on the psychology of language, the -necessity of observing the phenomena of actual everyday speech -was more clearly perceived. Among pioneers in this respect I -must specially mention Henry Sweet; now there is a steadily -growing interest in living speech as the necessary foundation of -all general theorizing. And with interest comes knowledge.</p> - -<p>It is outside the purpose of this volume to give the history -of linguistic study during the last forty years in the same way -as I have attempted to give it for the period before 1880, and I -must therefore content myself with a few brief remarks on<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_98" id="Page_98">[98]</a></span> -general tendencies. I even withstand the temptation to try and -characterize the two greatest works on general linguistics that -have appeared during this period, those by Georg v. d. Gabelentz -and Wilhelm Wundt: important and in many ways excellent -as they are, they have not exercised the same influence on contemporary -linguistic research as some of their predecessors. -Personally I owe incomparably much more to the former than -to the latter, who is much less of a linguist than of a psychologist -and whose pages seem to me often richer in words than in fertilizing -ideas. As for the rest, I can give only a bare alphabetical -list of some of the writers who during this period have dealt with -the more general problems of linguistic change or linguistic -theory, and must not attempt any appreciation of their works: -Bally, Baudouin de Courtenay, Bloomfield, Bréal, Delbrück, van -Ginneken, Hale, Henry, Hirt, Axel Kock, Meillet, Meringer, Noreen, -Oertel, Pedersen, Sandfeld (Jensen), de Saussure, Schuchardt, -Sechehaye, Streitberg, Sturtevant, Sütterlin, Sweet, Uhlenbeck, -Vossler, Wechssler. In the following parts of my work there -will be many opportunities of mentioning their views, especially -when I disagree with them, for I am afraid it will be impossible -always to indicate what I owe to their suggestions.</p> - -<p>In the history of linguistic science we have seen in one period -a tendency to certain large syntheses (the classification of -languages into isolating, agglutinative and flexional, and the -corresponding theory of three periods with its corollary touching -the origin of flexional endings), and we have seen how these -syntheses were later discredited, though never actually disproved, -linguists contenting themselves with detailed comparisons and -explanations of single words, forms or sounds without troubling -about their ultimate origin or about the evolutionary tendencies -of the whole system or structure of language. The question may -therefore be raised, were Bopp and Schleicher wrong in attempting -these large syntheses? It would appear from the expressions -of some modern linguists that they thought that any such comprehensive -generalization or any glottogonic theory were in itself -of evil. But this can never be admitted. Science, of its very -nature, aims at larger and larger generalizations, more and more -comprehensive formulas, so as finally to bring about that “unification -of knowledge” of which Herbert Spencer speaks. It was -therefore quite right of the early linguists to propound those -great questions; and their failure to solve them in a way that -could satisfy the stricter demands of a later generation should -not be charged too heavily against them. It was also quite -right of the moderns to reject their premature solutions (though -this was often done without any adequate examination), but<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_99" id="Page_99">[99]</a></span> -it was decidedly wrong to put the questions out of court altogether.<a name="FNanchor_16_16" id="FNanchor_16_16"></a><a href="#Footnote_16_16" class="fnanchor">[16]</a> -These great questions have to be put over and over -again, till a complete solution is found; and the refusal to face -these difficulties has produced a certain barrenness in modern -linguistics, which must strike any impartial observer, however -much he admits the fertility of the science in detailed investigations. -Breadth of vision is not conspicuous in modern -linguistics, and to my mind this lack is chiefly due to the fact -that linguists have neglected all problems connected with a -valuation of language. What is the criterion by which one word -or one form should be preferred to another? (most linguists -refuse to deal with such questions of preference or of correctness -of speech). Are the changes that we see gradually taking place -in languages to be considered as on the whole beneficial or the -opposite? (most linguists pooh-pooh such questions). Would it -be possible to construct an international language by which -persons in different countries could easily communicate with -one another? (most linguists down to the present day have -looked upon all who favour such ideas as visionaries and Utopians). -It is my firm conviction that such questions as these -admit of really scientific treatment and should be submitted to -serious discussion. But before tackling those of them which -fall within the plan of this work, it will be well to deal with some -fundamental facts of what is popularly called the ‘life’ of language, -and first of all with the manner in which a child acquires its -mother-tongue. For as language exists only in individuals and -means some specific activities of human beings which are not -inborn, but have to be learnt by each of them separately from -his fellow-beings, it is important to examine somewhat in detail -how this interaction of the individual and of the surrounding -society is brought about. This, then, will occupy us in Book II.</p> - - -<div class="chapter"> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_101" id="Page_101">[101]</a></span></p> - - - - -<h2 class="nobreak"><a name="BOOK_II" id="BOOK_II"><i>BOOK II</i></a><br /> - -<span class="larger">THE CHILD</span></h2> -</div> - - - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_103" id="Page_103">[103]</a></span></p> - - - -<h3 class="nobreak"><a name="CHAPTER_V" id="CHAPTER_V">CHAPTER V</a><br /> - -<span class="larger">SOUNDS</span></h3> - -<div class="blockquot chaptersummary"> - -<p>§ 1. From Screaming to Talking. § 2. First Sounds. § 3. Sound-laws of -the Next Stage. § 4. Groups of Sounds. § 5. Mutilations and -Reduplications. § 6. Correction. § 7. Tone.</p></div> - - -<h4>V.—§ 1. From Screaming to Talking.</h4> - -<p>A Danish philosopher has said: “In his whole life man achieves -nothing so great and so wonderful as what he achieved when he -learnt to talk.” When Darwin was asked in which three years -of his life a man learnt most, he said: “The first three.”</p> - -<p>A child’s linguistic development covers three periods—the -screaming time, the crowing or babbling time, and the talking -time. But the last is a long one, and must again be divided into -two periods—that of the “little language,” the child’s own -language, and that of the common language or language of the -community. In the former the child is linguistically an individualist, -in the latter he is more and more socialized.</p> - -<p>Of the screaming time little need be said. A child’s scream -is not uttered primarily as a means of conveying anything to -others, and so far is not properly to be called speech. But if -from the child’s side a scream is not a way of telling anything, -its elders may still read something in it and hurry to relieve the -trouble. And if the child comes to remark—as it soon will—that -whenever it cries someone comes and brings it something -pleasant, if only company, it will not be long till it makes use of -this instrument whenever it is uneasy or wants something. The -scream, which was at first a reflex action, is now a voluntary action. -And many parents have discovered that the child has learnt to -use its power of screaming to exercise a tyrannical power over -them—so that they have had to walk up and down all night with -a screaming child that prefers this way of spending the night to -lying quietly in its cradle. The only course is brutally to let the -baby scream till it is tired, and persist in never letting it get its -desire <em>because</em> it screams for it, but only because what it desires -is good for it. The child learns its lesson, and a scream is once -more what it was at first, an involuntary, irresistible result of the -fact that something is wrong.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_104" id="Page_104">[104]</a></span></p> - -<p>Screaming has, however, another side. It is of physiological -value as an exercise of all the muscles and appliances which are -afterwards to be called into play for speech and song. Nurses -say—and there may be something in it—that the child who screams -loudest as a baby becomes the best singer later.</p> - -<p>Babbling time produces pleasanter sounds which are more -adapted for the purposes of speech. Cooing, crowing, babbling—i.e. -uttering meaningless sounds and series of sounds—is a delightful -exercise like sprawling with outstretched arms and legs or trying -to move the tiny fingers. It has been well said that for a long -time a child’s dearest toy is its tongue—that is, of course, not the -tongue only, but the other organs of speech as well, especially -the lips and vocal chords. At first the movements of these organs -are as uncontrolled as those of the arms, but gradually they become -more systematic, and the boy knows what sound he wishes to -utter and is in a position to produce it exactly.</p> - -<p>First, then, come single vowels or vowels with a single consonant -preceding them, as <i>la</i>, <i>ra</i>, <i>lö</i>, etc., though a baby’s sounds cannot -be identified with any of ours or written down with our letters. -For, though the head and consequently the mouth capacity is -disproportionally great in an infant and grows more rapidly than -its limbs, there is still a great difference between its mouth capacity -and that required to utter normal speech-sounds. I have elsewhere -(PhG, p. 81 ff.) given the results of a series of measurings -of the jaw in children and adults and discussed the importance -of these figures for phonetic theory: while there is no growth of -any importance during the talking period (for a child of five may -have the same jaw-length as a man of thirty-seven), the growth -is enormous during the first months of a child’s life: in the case -of my own child, from 45 mm. a few days after birth to 60 mm. -at three months old and 75 mm. at eleven months, while the -average of grown-up men is 99 mm. and of women 93 mm. The -consequence is that the sounds of the baby are different from -ours, and that even when they resemble ours the mechanism of -production may be different from the normal one; when my son -during the first weeks said something like <i>la</i>, I was able to see -distinctly that the tip of the tongue was not at all in the position -required for our <i>l</i>. This want of congruence between the acoustic -manners of operation in the infant and the adult no doubt gives -us the key to many of the difficulties that have puzzled previous -observers of small children.</p> - -<p>Babbling or crowing begins not earlier than the third week; -it may be, not till the seventh or eighth week. The first sound -exercises are to be regarded as muscular exercises pure and simple, -as is clear from the fact that deaf-mutes amuse themselves with<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_105" id="Page_105">[105]</a></span> -them, although they cannot themselves hear them. But the -moment comes when the hearing child finds a pleasure in hearing -its own sounds, and a most important step is taken when the little -one begins to hear a resemblance between the sounds uttered -by its mother or nurse and its own. The mother will naturally -answer the baby’s syllables by repeating the same, and when the -baby recognizes the likeness, it secures an inexhaustible source -of pleasure, and after some time reaches the next stage, when it -tries itself to imitate what is said to it (generally towards the -close of the first year). The value of this exercise cannot be -over-estimated: the more that parents understand how to play -this game with the baby—of saying something and letting the -baby say it after, however meaningless the syllable-sequences that -they make—the better will be the foundation for the child’s later -acquisition and command of language.</p> - - -<h4>V.—§ 2. First Sounds.</h4> - -<p>It is generally said that the order in which the child learns -to utter the different sounds depends on their difficulty: the easiest -sounds are produced first. That is no doubt true in the main; -but when we go into details we find that different writers bring -forward lists of sounds in different order. All are agreed, however, -that among the consonants the labials, <i>p</i>, <i>b</i> and <i>m</i>, are early sounds, -if not the earliest. The explanation has been given that the child -can see the working of his mother’s lips in these sounds and therefore -imitates her movements. This implies far too much conscious -thought on the part of the baby, who utters his ‘ma’ or ‘mo’ -before he begins to imitate anything said to him by his surroundings. -Moreover, it has been pointed out that the child’s attention is -hardly ever given to its mother’s mouth, but is steadily fixed -on her eyes. The real reason is probably that the labial muscles -used to produce <i>b</i> or <i>m</i> are the same that the baby has exercised -in sucking the breast or the bottle. It would be interesting to -learn if blind children also produce the labial sounds first.</p> - -<p>Along with the labial sounds the baby produces many other -sounds—vowel and consonant—and in these cases one is certain -that it has not been able to see how these sounds are produced -by its mother. Even in the case of the labials we know that -what distinguishes <i>m</i> from <i>b</i>, the lowering of the soft palate, and -<i>b</i> from <i>p</i>, the vibrations of the vocal chords, is invisible. Some -of the sounds produced by means of the tongue may be too hard -to pronounce till the muscles of the tongue have been exercised -in consequence of the child having begun to eat more solid things -than milk.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_106" id="Page_106">[106]</a></span></p> - -<p>By the end of the first year the number of sounds which the -little babbler has mastered is already considerable, and he loves -to combine long series of the same syllables, dadadada ..., -nenenene ..., bygnbygnbygn ..., etc. That is a game which -need not even cease when the child is able to talk actual language. -It is strange that among an infant’s sounds one can often detect -sounds—for instance <i>k</i>, <i>g</i>, <i>h</i>, and uvular <i>r</i>—which the child will find -difficulty in producing afterwards when they occur in real words, -or which may be unknown to the language which it will some day -speak. The explanation lies probably in the difference between -doing a thing in play or without a plan—when it is immaterial -which movement (sound) is made—and doing the same thing of -fixed intention when this sound, and this sound only, is required, -at a definite point in the syllable, and with this or that particular -sound before and after. Accordingly, great difficulties come to -be encountered when the child begins more consciously and systematically -to imitate his elders. Some sounds come without effort -and may be used incessantly, to the detriment of others which -the child may have been able previously to produce in play; and -a time even comes when the stock of sounds actually diminishes, -while particular sounds acquire greater precision. Dancing masters, -singing masters and gymnastic teachers have similar experiences. -After some lessons the child may seem more awkward than it was -before the lessons began.</p> - -<p>The ‘little language’ which the child makes for itself by -imperfect imitation of the sounds of its elders seems so arbitrary -that it may well be compared to the child’s first rude drawings -of men and animals. A Danish boy named <i>Gustav</i> (1.6)<a name="FNanchor_17_17" id="FNanchor_17_17"></a><a href="#Footnote_17_17" class="fnanchor">[17]</a> called -himself [dodado] and turned the name <i>Karoline</i> into [nnn]. Other -Danish children made <i>skammel</i> into [gramn] or [gap], <i>elefant</i> into -[vat], <i>Karen</i> into [gaja], etc. A few examples from English -children: Hilary M. (1.6) called <i>Ireland</i> (her sister) [a·ni], -Gordon M. (1.10) called <i>Millicent</i> (his sister) [dadu·]. Tony E. -(1.11) called his playmate <i>Sheila</i> [dubabud].</p> - - -<h4>V.—§ 3. Sound-laws of the Next Stage.</h4> - -<p>As the child gets away from the peculiarities of his individual -‘little language,’ his speech becomes more regular, and a linguist -can in many cases see reasons for his distortions of normal words. -When he replaces one sound by another there is always some -common element in the formation of the two sounds, which causes<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_107" id="Page_107">[107]</a></span> -a kindred impression on the ear, though <em>we</em> may have difficulty -in detecting it because we are so accustomed to noticing the -difference. There is generally a certain system in the sound -substitutions of children, and in many instances we are justified -in speaking of ‘strictly observed sound-laws.’ Let us now look -at some of these.</p> - -<p>Children in all countries tend to substitute [t] for [k]: both -sounds are produced by a complete stoppage of the breath for the -moment by the tongue, the only difference being that it is the -back of the tongue which acts in one case, and the tip of -the tongue in the other. A child who substitutes <i>t</i> for <i>k</i> will -also substitute <i>d</i> for <i>g</i>; if he says ‘tat’ for ‘cat’ he will say -‘do’ for ‘go.’</p> - -<p><i>R</i> is a difficult sound. Hilary M. (2.0) has no <i>r</i>’s in her speech. -Initially they become <i>w</i>, as in [wʌn] for ‘run,’ medially between -vowels they become <i>l</i>, as in [veli, beli] for ‘very, berry,’ in consonantal -combinations they are lost, as in [kai, bʌʃ] for ‘cry, -brush.’ Tony E. (1.10 to 3.0) for medial <i>r</i> between vowels first -substituted <i>d</i>, as in [vedi] for ‘very,’ and later <i>g</i> [vegi]; similarly -in [mu·gi] for ‘Muriel,’ [tægi] for ‘carry’; he often dropped -initial <i>r</i>, e.g. <i>oom</i> for ‘room.’ It is not unusual for children who -use <i>w</i> for <i>r</i> in most combinations to say [tʃ] for <i>tr</i> and [dʒ] for <i>dr</i>, -as in ‘chee,’ ‘jawer’ for ‘tree,’ ‘drawer.’ This illustrates the -fact that what to us is <em>one</em> sound, and therefore represented in -writing by <em>one</em> letter, appears to the child’s ear as different sounds—and -generally the phonetician will agree with the child that -there are really differences in the articulation of the sound according -to position in the syllable and to surroundings, only the child -exaggerates the dissimilarities, just as we in writing one and the -same letter exaggerate the similarity.</p> - -<p>The two <i>th</i> sounds offer some difficulties and are often imitated -as <i>f</i> and <i>v</i> respectively, as in ‘frow’ and ‘muvver’ for ‘throw’ -and ‘mother’; others say ‘ze’ or ‘de’ for ‘the.’ Hilary M. -(2.0) has great difficulty with <i>th</i> and <i>s</i>; <i>th</i> usually becomes [ʃ], -[beʃ, ti·ʃ, ʃri·] for ‘Beth,’ ‘teeth,’ ‘three’; <i>s</i> becomes [ʃ], -e.g. [franʃiʃ, ʃti·m] for ‘Francis,’ ‘steam’; in the same way -<i>z</i> becomes [ʒ] as in [lʌbʒ, bouʒ] for ‘loves,’ ‘Bowes’; <i>sw</i> becomes -[fw] as in [fwiŋ, fwi·t] for ‘swing,’ ‘sweet.’ She drops <i>l</i> in consonantal -combinations, e.g. [ki·n, kaim, kɔk, ʃi·p] for ‘clean,’ -‘climb,’ ‘clock,’ ‘sleep.’</p> - -<p>Sometimes it requires a phonetician’s knowledge to understand -the individual sound-laws of a child. Thus I pick out from some -specimens given by O’Shea, p. 135 f. (girl, 2.9), the following -words: <i>pell</i> (smell), <i>teeze</i> (sneeze), <i>poke</i> (smoke), <i>tow</i> (snow), and -formulate the rule: <i>s</i> + a nasal became the voiceless stop corre<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_108" id="Page_108">[108]</a></span>sponding -to the nasal, a kind of assimilation, in which the place -of articulation and the mouth-closure of the nasals were preserved, -and the sound was made unvoiced and non-nasal as the <i>s</i>. In -other combinations <i>m</i> and <i>n</i> were intact.</p> - -<p>Some further faults are illustrated in Tony E.’s [tʃouz, pʌg, -pus, tæm, pʌm, bæk, pi·z, nouʒ, ɔk, es, u·] for <i>clothes</i>, <i>plug</i>, <i>push</i>, -<i>tram</i>, <i>plum</i>, <i>black</i>, <i>please</i>, <i>nose</i>, <i>clock</i>, <i>yes</i>, <i>you</i>.</p> - - -<h4><a id="V_4"></a>V.—§ 4. Groups of Sounds.</h4> - -<p>Even when a sound by itself can be pronounced, the child -often finds it hard to pronounce it when it forms part of a group -of sounds. <i>S</i> is often dropped before another consonant, as in -‘tummy’ for ‘stomach.’ Other examples have already been -given above. Hilary M. (2.0) had difficulty with <i>lp</i> and said -[hæpl] for ‘help.’ She also said [ointən] for ‘ointment’; -C. M. L. (2.3) said ‘sikkums’ for ‘sixpence.’ Tony E. (2.0) -turns <i>grannie</i> into [nægi]. When initial consonant groups are -simplified, it is generally, though not always, the stop that remains: -<i>b</i> instead of <i>bl-</i>, <i>br-</i>, <i>k</i> instead of <i>kr-</i>, <i>sk-</i>, <i>skr-</i>, <i>p</i> instead of <i>pl-</i>, <i>pr-</i>, -<i>spr-</i>, etc. For the groups occurring medially and finally no general -rule seems possible.</p> - - -<h4>V.—§ 5. Mutilations and Reduplications.</h4> - -<p>To begin with, the child is unable to master long sequences -of syllables; he prefers monosyllables and often emits them singly -and separated by pauses. Even in words that to us are inseparable -wholes some children will make breaks between syllables, e.g. -Shef-field, Ing-land. But more often they will give only part -of the word, generally the last syllable or syllables; hence we get -pet-names like <i>Bet</i> or <i>Beth</i> for Elizabeth and forms like ‘tatoes’ -for potatoes, ‘chine’ for machine, ‘tina’ for concertina, ‘tash’ -for moustache, etc. Hilary M. (1.10) called an express-cart a -<i>press-cart</i>, bananas and pyjamas <i>nanas</i> and <i>jamas</i>.</p> - -<p>It is not, however, the production of long sequences of syllables -in itself that is difficult to the child, for in its meaningless babbling -it may begin very early to pronounce long strings of sounds without -any break; but the difficulty is to remember what sounds have -to be put together to bring about exactly this or that word. We -grown-up people may experience just the same sort of difficulty -if after hearing once the long name of a Bulgarian minister or a -Sanskrit book we are required to repeat it at once. Hence we should -not wonder at such pronunciations as [pekəlout] for <i>petticoat</i> or -[efelənt] for <i>elephant</i> (Beth M., 2.6); Hilary M. called a <i>caterpillar</i><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_109" id="Page_109">[109]</a></span> -a <i>pillarcat</i>. Other transpositions are <i>serreval</i> for <i>several</i> and <i>ocken</i> -for <i>uncle</i>; cf. also <i>wops</i> for <i>wasp</i>.</p> - -<p>To explain the frequent reduplications found in children’s -language it is not necessary, as some learned authors have done, -to refer to the great number of reduplicated words in the languages -of primitive tribes and to see in the same phenomenon in our own -children an atavistic return to primitive conditions, on the Häckelian -assumption that the development of each individual has to pass -rapidly through the same (‘phylogenetic’) stages as the whole -lineage of his ancestors. It is simpler and more natural to refer -these reduplications to the pleasure always felt in repeating the -same muscular action until one is tired. The child will repeat -over and over again the same movements of legs and arms, and -we do the same when we wave our hand or a handkerchief or when -we nod our head several times to signify assent, etc. When we -laugh we repeat the same syllable consisting of <i>h</i> and a more or -less indistinct vowel, and when we sing a melody without words -we are apt to ‘reduplicate’ indefinitely. Thus also with the -little ones. Apart from such words as <i>papa</i> and <i>mamma</i>, to which -we shall have to revert in another chapter (VIII, § <a href="#VIII_8">8</a>), children -will often form words from those of their elders by repeating one -syllable; cf. <i>puff-puff</i>, <i>gee-gee</i>. Tracy (p. 132) records <i>pepe</i> for -‘pencil,’ <i>kaka</i> for ‘Carrie.’ For a few weeks (1.11) Hilary M. -reduplicated whole words, e.g. <i>king-king</i>, <i>ring-ring</i> (i.e. bell), -<i>water-water</i>. Tony F. (1.10) uses [touto] for his own name. -Hence pet-names like <i>Dodo</i>; they are extremely frequent in French—for -instance, <i>Fifine</i>, <i>Lolotte</i>, <i>Lolo</i>, <i>Mimi</i>; the name <i>Daudet</i> has -arisen in a similar way from <i>Claudet</i>, a diminutive of Claude.</p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>It is a similar phenomenon (a kind of partial reduplication) -when sounds at a distance affect one another, as when Hilary M. -(2.0) said [gɔgi] for <i>doggie</i>, [bɔbin] for <i>Dobbin</i>, [dezmən di·n] for -<i>Jesmond Dene</i>, [baikikl] for <i>bicycle</i>, [kekl] for <i>kettle</i>. Tracy (p. 133) -mentions <i>bopoo</i> for ‘bottle,’ in which <i>oo</i> stands for the hollow -sound of syllabic <i>l</i>. One correspondent mentions <i>whoofing-cough</i> -for ‘whooping-cough’ (where the final sound has crept into the -first word) and <i>chicken-pops</i> for ‘chicken-pox.’ Some children -say ‘aneneme’ for <i>anemone</i>; and in S. L. (4.9) this caused a -curious confusion during the recent war: “Mother, there must -be two sorts of anenemies, flowers and Germans.”</p> - -<p>Dr. Henry Bradley once told me that his youngest child had -a difficulty with the name <i>Connie</i>, which was made alternatingly -[tɔni] and [kɔŋi], in both cases with two consonants articulated -at the same point. Similar instances are mentioned in German -books on children’s language, thus <i>gigarr</i> for ‘zigarre,’ <i>baibift</i><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_110" id="Page_110">[110]</a></span> -for ‘bleistift,’ <i>autobobil</i> (Meringer),<a name="FNanchor_18_18" id="FNanchor_18_18"></a><a href="#Footnote_18_18" class="fnanchor">[18]</a> <i>fotofafieren</i> (Stern), <i>ambam</i> -for ‘armband,’ <i>dan</i> for ‘dame,’ <i>pap</i> for ‘patte’ (Ronjat). I -have given many Danish examples in my Danish book. Grammont’s -child (see <cite lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Mélanges linguistiques offerts à A. Meillet</cite>, 1902) -carried through these changes in a most systematic way.</p> - - -<h4>V.—§ 6. Correction.</h4> - -<p>The time comes when the child corrects his mistakes—where -it said ‘tat’ it now says ‘cat.’ Here there are two possibilities -which both seem to occur in actual life. One is that the child -hears the correct sound some time before he is able to imitate it -correctly; he will thus still say <i>t</i> for <i>k</i>, though he may in some -way object to other people saying ‘tum’ for ‘come.’ Passy -relates how a little French girl would say <i>tosson</i> both for <i>garçon</i> -and <i>cochon</i>; but she protested when anybody else said “C’est -un petit cochon” in speaking about a boy, or vice versa. Such -a child, as soon as it can produce the new sound, puts it correctly -into all the places where it is required. This, I take it, is the -ordinary procedure. Frans (my own boy) could not pronounce -<i>h</i> and said <i>an</i>, <i>on</i> for the Danish pronouns <i>han</i>, <i>hun</i>; but when -he began to pronounce this sound, he never misplaced it (2.4).</p> - -<p>The other possibility is that the child learns how to pronounce -the new sound at a time when its own acoustic impression is not -yet quite settled; in that case there will be a period during which -his use of the new sound is uncertain and fluctuating. When -parents are in too great a hurry to get a child out of some false -pronunciation, they may succeed in giving it a new sound, but -the child will tend to introduce it in places where it does not belong. -On the whole, it seems therefore the safest plan to leave it to the -child itself to discover that its sound is not the correct one.</p> - -<p>Sometimes a child will acquire a sound or a sound combination -correctly and then lose it till it reappears a few months later. -In an English family where there was no question of the influence -of <i>h</i>-less servants, each child in succession passed through an <i>h</i>-less -period, and one of the children, after pronouncing <i>h</i> correctly, -lost the use of it altogether for two or three months. I have -had similar experiences with Danish children. S. L. (ab. 2) said -‘bontin’ for <i>bonnet</i>; but five months earlier she had said <i>bonnet</i> -correctly.</p> - -<p>The path to perfection is not always a straight one. Tony E. -in order to arrive at the correct pronunciation of <i>please</i> passed -through the following stages: (1) [bi·], (2) [bli·], (3) [pi·z],<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_111" id="Page_111">[111]</a></span> -(4) [pwi·ʒ], (5) [beisk, meis, mais] and several other impossible -forms. Tracy (p. 139) gives the following forms through which -the boy A. (1.5) had to pass before being able to say <i>pussy</i>: <i>pooheh</i>, -<i>poofie</i>, <i>poopoohie</i>, <i>poofee</i>. A French child had four forms [mèni, -pèti, mèti, mèsi] before being able to say <i>merci</i> correctly (Grammont). -A Danish child passed through <i>bejab</i> and <i>vamb</i> before -pronouncing <i>svamp</i> (‘sponge’), etc.</p> - -<p>It is certain that all this while the little brain is working, and -even consciously working, though at first it has not sufficient -command of speech to say anything about it. Meringer says that -children do not practise, but that their new acquisitions of sounds -happen at once without any visible preparation. He may be right -in the main with regard to the learning of single sounds, though -even there I incline to doubt the possibility of a universal rule; -but Ronjat (p. 55) is certainly right as against Meringer with -regard to the way in which children learn new and difficult combinations. -Here they certainly do practise, and are proudly -conscious of the happy results of their efforts. When Frans (2.11) -mastered the combination <i>fl</i>, he was very proud, and asked his -mother: “Mother, can you say <i>flyve</i>?”; then he came to me and -told me that he could say <i>bluse</i> and <i>flue</i>, and when asked whether -he could say <i>blad</i>, he answered: “No, not yet; Frans cannot -say <i>b-lad</i>” (with a little interval between the <i>b</i> and the <i>l</i>). Five -weeks later he said: “Mother, won’t you play upon the <i>klaver</i> -(piano)?” and after a little while, “Frans can say <i>kla</i> so well.” -About the same time he first mispronounced the word <i>manchetter</i>, -and then (when I asked what he was saying, without telling him -that anything was wrong) he gave it the correct sound, and I -heard him afterwards in the adjoining room repeat the word to -himself in a whisper.</p> - -<p>How well children observe sounds is again seen by the way -in which they will correct their elders if they give a pronunciation -to which they are not accustomed—for instance, in a verse they -have learnt by heart. Beth M (2.6) was never satisfied with her -parents’ pronunciation of “What will you buy me when you get -there?” She always insisted on their gabbling the first words -as quickly as they could and then coming out with an emphatic -<i>there</i>.</p> - - -<h4>V.—§ 7. Tone.</h4> - -<p>As to the differences in the tone of a voice, even a baby shows -by his expression that he can distinguish clearly between what -is said to him lovingly and what sharply, a long time before he -understands a single word of what is said. Many children are<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_112" id="Page_112">[112]</a></span> -able at a very early age to hit off the exact note in which something -is said or sung. Here is a story of a boy of more advanced -age. In Copenhagen he had had his hair cut by a Swedish lady -and did not like it. When he travelled with his mother to Norway, -as soon as he entered the house, he broke out with a scream: -“Mother, I hope I’m not going to have my hair cut?” He had -noticed the Norwegian intonation, which is very like the Swedish, -and it brought an unpleasant association of ideas.</p> - - -<div class="chapter"> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_113" id="Page_113">[113]</a></span></p> - - - - -<h3 class="nobreak"><a name="CHAPTER_VI" id="CHAPTER_VI">CHAPTER VI</a><br /> - -<span class="larger">WORDS</span></h3> -</div> - -<div class="blockquot chaptersummary"> - -<p>§ 1. Introductory. § 2. First Period. § 3. Father and Mother. § 4. The -Delimitation of Meaning. § 5. Numerals. Time. § 6. Various Difficulties. -§ 7. Shifters. § 8. Extent of Vocabulary. § 9. Summary.</p></div> - - -<h4>VI.—§ 1. Introductory.</h4> - -<p>In the preceding chapter, in order to simplify matters, we have -dealt with sounds only, as if they were learnt by themselves and -independently of the meanings attached to them. But that, of -course, is only an abstraction: to the child, as well as to the -grown-up, the two elements, the outer, phonetic element, and the -inner element, the meaning, of a word are indissolubly connected, -and the child has no interest, or very little interest, in trying to -imitate the sounds of its parents except just in so far as these -mean something. That words have a meaning, the child will -begin to perceive at a very early age. Parents may of course -deceive themselves and attribute to the child a more complete -and exact understanding of speech than the child is capable of. -That the child looks at its father when it hears the word ‘father,’ -may mean at first nothing more than that it follows its mother’s -glance; but naturally in this way it is prepared for actually associating -the idea of ‘father’ with the sound. If the child learns -the feat of lifting its arms when it is asked “How big is the boy?” -it is not to be supposed that the single words of the sentence are -understood, or that the child has any conception of size; he only -knows that when this series of sounds is said he is admired if he -lifts his arms up: and so the sentence as a whole has the effect -of a word of command. A dog has the same degree of understanding. -Hilary M. (1.0), when you said to her at any time the -refrain “He greeted me so,” from “Here come three knights from -Spain,” would bow and salute with her hand, as she had seen some -children doing it when practising the song.</p> - -<p>The understanding of what is said always precedes the power -of saying the same thing oneself—often precedes it for an extraordinarily -long time. One father notes that his little daughter -of a year and seven months brings what is wanted and understands -questions while she cannot say a word. It often happens that<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_114" id="Page_114">[114]</a></span> -parents some fine day come to regret what they have said in the -presence of a child without suspecting how much it understands. -“Little pitchers have long ears.”</p> - -<p>One can, however, easily err in regard to the range and certainty -of a child’s understanding. The Swiss philologist Tappolet -noticed that his child of six months, when he said “Where is the -window?” made vague movements towards the window. He -made the experiment of repeating his question in French—with -the same intonation as in German, and the child acted just as it -had done before. It is, properly speaking, only when the child -begins to talk that we can be at all sure what it has really understood, -and even then it may at times be difficult to sound the -depths of the child’s conception.</p> - -<p>The child’s acquisition of the meaning of words is truly a highly -complicated affair. How many things are comprehended under -one word? The answer is not easy in all cases. The single Danish -word <i>tæppe</i> covers all that is expressed in English by carpet, rug, -blanket, counterpane, curtain (theatrical). And there is still -more complication when we come to abstract ideas. The child -has somehow to find out for himself with regard to his own language -what ideas are considered to hang together and so come -under the same word. He hears the word ‘chair’ applied to -a particular chair, then to another chair that perhaps looks to -him totally different, and again to a third: and it becomes his -business to group these together.</p> - -<p>What Stern tells about his own boy is certainly exceptional, -perhaps unique. The boy ran to a door and said <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">das?</i> (‘That?’—his -way of asking the name of a thing). They told him ‘tür.’ -He then went to two other doors in the room, and each time the -performance was repeated. He then did the same with the seven -chairs in the room. Stern says, “As he thus makes sure that -the objects that are alike to his eye and to his sense of touch have -also the same name, he is on his way to general conceptions.” -We should, however, be wary of attributing general ideas to little -children.</p> - - -<h4>VI.—§ 2. First Period.</h4> - -<p>In the first period we meet the same phenomena in the child’s -acquisition of word-meanings that we found in his acquisition of -sounds. A child develops conceptions of his own which are as -unintelligible and strange to the uninitiated as his sounds.</p> - -<p>Among the child’s first passions are animals and pictures of -animals, but for a certain time it is quite arbitrary what animals -are classed together under a particular name. A child of nine<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_115" id="Page_115">[115]</a></span> -months noticed that his grandfather’s dog said ‘bow-wow’ and -fancied that anything not human could say (and therefore should -be called) <i>bow-wow</i>—pigs and horses included. A little girl of -two called a horse <i>he</i> (Danish <i>hest</i>) and divided the animal kingdom -into two groups, (1) horses, including all four-footed things, even -a tortoise, and (2) fishes (pronounced <i>iz</i>), including all that moved -without use of feet, for example, birds and flies. A boy of 1.8 -saw a picture of a Danish priest in a ruff and was told that it was -a <i>præst</i>, which he rendered as <i>bæp</i>. Afterwards seeing a picture -of an aunt with a white collar which recalled the priest’s ruff, he -said again <i>bæp</i>, and this remained the name of the aunt, and even -of another aunt, who was called ‘other bæp.’ These transferences -are sometimes extraordinary. A boy who had had a pig -drawn for him, the pig being called <i>öf</i>, at the age of 1.6 used <i>öf</i> -(1) for a pig, (2) for drawing a pig, (3) for writing in general.</p> - -<p>Such transferences may seem very absurd, but are not more -so than some transferences occurring in the language of grown-up -persons. The word <i>Tripos</i> passed from the sense of a three-legged -stool to the man who sat on a three-legged stool to dispute with -candidates for degrees at Cambridge. Then, as it was the duty -of Mr. Tripos also to provide comic verses, these were called tripos -verses, such verses being printed under that name till very near -the end of the nineteenth century, though Mr. Tripos himself had -disappeared long ago. And as the examination list was printed -on the back of these verses, it was called the Tripos list, and it -was no far cry to saying of a successful candidate, “he stands -high on the Tripos,” which now came to mean the examination -itself.</p> - -<p>But to return to the classifications in the minds of the children. -Hilary M. (1.6 to 2.0) used the word <i>daisy</i> (1) of the flower itself, -(2) of any flower, (3) of any conventional flower in a pattern, -(4) of any pattern. One of the first words she said was <i>colour</i> -(1.4), and she got into a way of saying it when anything striking -attracted her attention. Originally she heard the word of a -bright patch of colour in a picture. The word was still in use -at the age of two. For some months anything that moved was -a <i>fly</i>, every man was a <i>soldier</i>, everybody that was not a man -was a <i>baby</i>. S. L. (1.8) used <i>bing</i> (1) for a door, (2) for bricks -or building with bricks. The connexion is through the bang -of a door or a tumbling castle of bricks, but the name was transferred -to the objects. It is curious that at 1.3 she had the word -<i>bang</i> for anything dropped, but not <i>bing</i>; at 1.8 she had both, -<i>bing</i> being specialized as above. From books about children’s -language I quote two illustrations. Ronjat’s son used the word -<i>papement</i>, which stands for ‘<span lang="de" xml:lang="de">kaffemensch</span>,’ in speaking about the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_116" id="Page_116">[116]</a></span> -grocer’s boy who brought coffee; but as he had a kind of uniform -with a flat cap, <i>papement</i> was also used of German and Russian -officers in the illustrated papers. Hilde Stern (1.9) used <i>bichu</i> -for drawer or chest of drawers; it originated in the word <i>bücher</i> -(books), which was said when her picture-books were taken out -of the drawer.</p> - -<p>A warning is, however, necessary. When a grown-up person -says that a child uses the same word to denote various things, -he is apt to assume that the child gives a word two or three definite -meanings, as <em>he</em> does. The process is rather in this way. A child -has got a new toy, a horse, and at the same time has heard its -elders use the word ‘horse,’ which it has imitated as well as it -can. It now associates the word with the delight of playing with -its toy. If the next day it says the same sound, and its friends -give it the horse, the child gains the experience that the sound -brings the fulfilment of its wish: but if it sets its eye on a china -cow and utters the same sound, the father takes note that the -sound also denotes a cow, while for the child it is perhaps a mere -experiment—“Could not I get my wish for that nice thing fulfilled -in the same way?” If it succeeds, the experiment may very well -be repeated, and the more or less faulty imitation of the word -‘horse’ thus by the co-operation of those around it may become -also firmly attached to ‘cow.’</p> - -<p>When Elsa B. (1.10), on seeing the stopper of a bottle in the -garden, came out with the word ‘beer,’ it would be rash to conclude -(as her father did) that the word ‘beer’ to her meant a ‘stopper’: -all we know is that her thoughts had taken that direction, and -that some time before, on seeing a stopper, she had heard the -word ‘beer.’</p> - -<p>Parents sometimes unconsciously lead a child into error about -the use of words. A little nephew of mine asked to taste his -father’s beer, and when refused made so much to-do that the -father said, “Come, let us have peace in the house.” Next day, -under the same circumstances, the boy asked for ‘peace in the -house,’ and this became the family name for beer. Not infrequently -what is said on certain occasions is taken by the child to -be the <em>name</em> of some object concerned; thus a sniff or some sound -imitating it may come to mean a flower, and ‘hurrah’ a flag. -S. L. from an early age was fond of flowers, and at 1.8 used -‘pretty’ or ‘pretty-pretty’ as a substantive instead of the word -‘flower,’ which she learnt at 1.10.</p> - -<p>I may mention here that analogous mistakes may occur when -missionaries or others write down words from foreign languages -with which they are not familiar. In the oldest list of Greenlandic -words (of 1587) there is thus a word <i>panygmah</i> given with<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_117" id="Page_117">[117]</a></span> -the signification ‘needle’; as a matter of fact it means ‘my -daughter’s’: the Englishman pointed at the needle, but the -Eskimo thought he wanted to know whom it belonged to. In an -old list of words in the now extinct Polabian language we find -“<i>scumbe</i>, yesterday, <i>subuda</i>, to-day, <i>janidiglia</i>, to-morrow”: the -questions were put on a Saturday, and the Slav answered accordingly, -for <i>subuta</i> (the same word as Sabbath) means Saturday, -<i>skumpe</i> ‘fasting-day,’ and <i>ja nedila</i> ‘it is Sunday.’</p> - -<p>According to O’Shea (p. 131) “a child was greatly impressed -with the horns of a buck the first time he saw him. The father -used the term ‘sheep’ several times while the creature was being -inspected, and it was discovered afterwards that the child had -made the association between the word and the animal’s horns, -so now <i>sheep</i> signifies primarily horns, whether seen in pictures -or in real life.” It is clear that mistakes of that kind will happen -more readily if the word is said singly than when it is embodied -in whole connected sentences: the latter method is on the whole -preferable for many reasons.</p> - - -<h4>VI.—§ 3. Father and Mother.</h4> - -<p>A child is often faced by some linguistic usage which obliges -him again and again to change his notions, widen them, narrow -them, till he succeeds in giving words the same range of meaning -that his elders give them.</p> - -<p>Frequently, perhaps most frequently, a word is at first for -the child a proper name. ‘Wood’ means not a wood in general, -but the particular picture which has been pointed out to the child -in the dining-room. The little girl who calls her mother’s black -muff ‘muff,’ but refuses to transfer the word to her own white -one, is at the same stage. Naturally, then, the word <i>father</i> when -first heard is a proper name, the name of the child’s own father. -But soon it must be extended to other individuals who have something -or other in common with the child’s father. One child will -use it of all <i>men</i>, another perhaps of all men with beards, while -‘lady’ is applied to all pictures of faces without beards; a third -will apply the word to father, mother and grandfather. When -the child itself applies the word to another man it is soon corrected, -but at the same time it cannot avoid hearing another child call -a strange man ‘father’ or getting to know that the gardener is -Jack’s ‘father,’ etc. The word then comes to mean to the child -‘a grown-up person who goes with or belongs to a little one,’ -and he will say, “See, there goes a dog with his father.” Or, he -comes to know that the cat is the kittens’ father, and the dog the -puppies’ father, and next day asks, “Wasps, are they the flies’<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_118" id="Page_118">[118]</a></span> -father, or are they perhaps their mother?” (as Frans did, 4.10). -Finally, by such guessing and drawing conclusions he gains full -understanding of the word, and is ready to make acquaintance -later with its more remote applications, as ‘The King is the -father of his people; Father O’Flynn; Boyle was the father of -chemistry,’ etc.</p> - -<p>Difficulties are caused to the child when its father puts himself -on the child’s plane and calls his wife ‘mother’ just as he -calls his own mother ‘mother,’ though at other moments the -child hears him call her ‘grandmother’ or ‘grannie.’ Professor -Sturtevant writes to me that a neighbour child, a girl of about -five years, called out to him, “I saw your girl and your mother,” -meaning ‘your daughter and your wife.’ In many families the -words ‘sister’ (‘Sissie’) or ‘brother’ are used constantly instead -of his or her real name. Here we see the reason why so often such -names of relations change their meaning in the history of languages; -G. <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">vetter</i> probably at first meant ‘father’s brother,’ as -it corresponds to Latin <i>patruus</i>; G. <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">base</i>, from ‘father’s sister,’ -came to mean also ‘mother’s sister,’ ‘niece’ and ‘cousin.’ The -word that corresponds etymologically to our <i>mother</i> has come -to mean ‘wife’ or ‘woman’ in Lithuanian and ‘sister’ in -Albanian.</p> - -<p>The same extension that we saw in the case of ‘father’ now -may take place with real proper names. Tony E. (3.5), when a -fresh charwoman came, told his mother not to have <i>this Mary</i>: -the last charwoman’s name was Mary.<a name="FNanchor_19_19" id="FNanchor_19_19"></a><a href="#Footnote_19_19" class="fnanchor">[19]</a> In exactly the same way -a Danish child applied the name of their servant, Ingeborg, as -a general word for servant: “Auntie’s Ingeborg is called Ann,” -etc., and a German girl said <i>viele Augusten</i> for ‘many girls.’ This, -of course, is the way in which <i>doll</i> has come to mean a ‘toy baby,’ -and we use the same extension when we say of a statesman that -he is no <i>Bismarck</i>, etc.</p> - - -<h4>VI.—§ 4. The Delimitation of Meaning.</h4> - -<p>The association of a word with its meaning is accomplished -for the child by a series of single incidents, and as many words -are understood only by the help of the situation, it is natural that -the exact force of many of them is not seized at once. A boy of -4.10, hearing that his father had seen the King, inquired, “Has -he a head at both ends?”—his conception of a king being derived -from playing-cards. Another child was born on what the Danes -call Constitution Day, the consequence being that he confused -birthday and Constitution Day, and would speak of “my Consti<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_119" id="Page_119">[119]</a></span>tution -Day,” and then his brother and sister also began to talk of -their Constitution Day.</p> - -<p>Hilary M. (2.0) and Murdoch D. (2.6) used <i>dinner</i>, <i>breakfast</i> -and <i>tea</i> interchangeably—the words might be translated ‘meal.’ -Other more or less similar confusions may be mentioned here. -Tony F. (2.8) used the term <i>sing</i> for (1) reading, (2) singing, (3) -any game in which his elders amused him. Hilary said indifferently, -‘Daddy, <i>sing</i> a story three bears,’ and ‘Daddy, <i>tell</i> a story three -bears.’ She cannot remember which is <i>knife</i> and which is <i>fork</i>. -Beth M. (2.6) always used <i>can’t</i> when she meant <i>won’t</i>. It meant -simply refusal to do what she did not want to.</p> - - -<h4>VI.—§ 5. Numerals. Time.</h4> - -<p>It is interesting to watch the way in which arithmetical notions -grow in extent and clearness. Many children learn very early -to say <i>one</i>, <i>two</i>, which is often said to them when they learn how -to walk; but no ideas are associated with these syllables. In the -same way many children are drilled to say <i>three</i> when the parents -begin with <i>one</i>, <i>two</i>, etc. The idea of plurality is gradually developed, -but a child may very well answer <i>two</i> when asked how many -fingers papa has; Frans used the combinations <i>some-two</i> and -<i>some-three</i> to express ‘more than one’ (2.4). At the age of 2.11 -he was very fond of counting, but while he always got the first -four numbers right, he would skip over 5 and 7; and when asked -to count the apples in a bowl, he would say rapidly 1-2-3-4, even -if there were only three, or stop at 3, even if there were five or -more. At 3.4 he counted objects as far as 10 correctly, but might -easily pass from 11 to 13, and if the things to be counted were not -placed in a row he was apt to bungle by moving his fingers irregularly -from one to another. When he was 3.8 he answered the -question “What do 2 and 2 make?” quite correctly, but next day -to the same question he answered “Three,” though in a doubtful -tone of voice. This was in the spring, and next month I noted: -“His sense of number is evidently weaker than it was: the open-air -life makes him forget this as well as all the verses he knew by -heart in the winter.” When the next winter came his counting -exercises again amused him, but at first he was in a fix as before -about any numbers after 6, although he could repeat the numbers -till 10 without a mistake. He was fond of doing sums, and had -initiated this game himself by asking: “Mother, if I have two -apples and get one more, haven’t I then three?” His sense of -numbers was so abstract that he was caught by a tricky question: -“If you have two eyes and one nose, how many ears have you?” -He answered at once, “Three!” A child thus seems to think in<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_120" id="Page_120">[120]</a></span> -abstract numbers, and as he learns his numbers as 1, 2, 3, 4, etc., -not as one pear, two pears, three pears, one may well be skeptical -about the justification for the recommendation made by many -pedagogues that at an early stage of the school-life a child should -learn to reckon with concrete things rather than with abstract -numbers.</p> - -<p>A child will usually be familiar with the sound of higher -numerals long before it has any clear notion of what they mean. -Frans (3.6) said, “They are coming by a train that is called four -thirty-four,” and (4.4) he asked, “How much is twice hundred? -Is that a thousand?”</p> - -<p>A child’s ideas of time are necessarily extremely vague to -begin with; it cannot connect very clear or very definite notions -with the expressions it constantly hears others employ, such as -‘last Sunday,’ ‘a week ago,’ or ‘next year.’ The other day I -heard a little girl say: “This is where we sat <i>next time</i>,” evidently -meaning ‘last time.’ All observers of children mention the -frequent confusion of words like <i>to-morrow</i> and <i>yesterday</i>, and the -linguist remembers that Gothic <i>gistradagis</i> means ‘to-morrow,’ -though it corresponds formally with E. <i>yesterday</i> and G. <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">gestern</i>.</p> - - -<h4><a id="VI_6"></a>VI.—§ 6. Various Difficulties.</h4> - -<p>Very small children will often say <i>up</i> both when they want -to be taken up and when they want to be put down on the floor. -This generally means nothing else than that they have not yet -learnt the word <i>down</i>, and <i>up</i> to them simply is a means to obtain -a change of position. In the same way a German child used <i>hut -auf</i> for having the hat taken off as well as put on, but Meumann -rightly interprets this as an undifferentiated desire to have something -happen with the hat. But even with somewhat more -advanced children there are curious confusions.</p> - -<p>Hilary M. (2.0) is completely baffled by words of opposite meaning. -She will say, “Daddy, my pinny is too <i>hot</i>; I must warm it -at the fire.” She goes to the fire and comes back, saying, “That’s -better; it’s quite <i>cool</i> now.” (The same confusion of <i>hot</i> and <i>cold</i> -was also reported in the case of one Danish and one German child; -cf. also Tracy, p. 134.) One morning while dressing she said, -“What a <i>nice</i> windy day,” and an hour or two later, before -she had been out, “What a <i>nasty</i> windy day.” She confuses -<i>good</i> and <i>naughty</i> completely. Tony F. (2.5) says, “Turn the -<i>dark</i> out.”</p> - -<p>Sometimes a mere accidental likeness may prove too much -for the child. When Hilary M. had a new doll (2.0) her mother -said to her: “And is that your <i>son</i>?” Hilary was puzzled, and<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_121" id="Page_121">[121]</a></span> -looking out of the window at the sun, said: “No, that’s my sun.” -It was very difficult to set her out of this confusion.<a name="FNanchor_20_20" id="FNanchor_20_20"></a><a href="#Footnote_20_20" class="fnanchor">[20]</a> Her sister -Beth (3.8), looking at a sunset, said: “That’s what you call a <i>sunset</i>; -where Ireland (her sister) is (at school) it’s a <i>summerset</i>.” -About the same time, when staying at <i>Longwood Farm</i>, she said: -“I suppose if the trees were cut down it would be <i>Shortwood -Farm</i>?”</p> - -<p>An English friend writes to me: “I misunderstood the text, -‘And there fell from his eyes as it were scales,’ as I knew the word -<i>scales</i> only in the sense ‘balances.’ The phenomenon seemed to -me a strange one, but I did not question that it occurred, any -more than I questioned other strange phenomena recounted in -the Bible. In the lines of the <span class="lock">hymn—</span></p> - -<div class="poetry-container"><div class="poetry"><div class="stanza"> - <div class="verse">Teach me to live that I may dread</div> - <div class="verse">The grave as little as my bed—</div> -</div></div></div> - -<p>I supposed that the words ‘as little as my bed’ were descriptive -of my future grave, and that it was my duty according to the -hymn to fear the grave.”</p> - -<p>Words with several meanings may cause children much difficulty. -A Somerset child said, “Moses was not a good boy, and -his mother smacked ’un and smacked ’un and smacked ’un till -she couldn’t do it no more, and then she put ’un in the ark of -bulrushes.” This puzzled the teacher till he looked at the passage -in Exodus: “And when she could <i>hide</i> him no longer, she laid -him in an ark of bulrushes.” Here, of course, we have technically -two different words <i>hide</i>; but to the child the difficulty is -practically as great where we have what is called one and the -same word with two distinct meanings, or when a word is used -figuratively.</p> - -<p>The word ‘child’ means two different things, which in some -languages are expressed by two distinct words. I remember my -own astonishment at the age of nine when I heard my godmother -talk of her children. “But you have no children.” “Yes, Clara -and Eliza.” I knew them, of course, but they were grown up.</p> - -<p>Take again the word <i>old</i>. A boy knew that he was three years, -but could not be induced to say ‘three years old’; no, he is three -years new, and his father too is new, as distinct from his grandmother, -who he knows is old. A child asked, “Why have -<i>grand</i> dukes and <i>grand</i> pianos got the same name?” (Glenconner, -p. 21).</p> - -<p>When Frans was told (4.4) “Your eyes are running,” he was -much astonished, and asked, “Are they running away?”</p> -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_122" id="Page_122">[122]</a></span></p> -<p>Sometimes a child knows a word first in some secondary sense. -When a country child first came to Copenhagen and saw a soldier, -he said, “There is a tin-soldier” (2.0). Stern has a story about -his daughter who was taken to the country and wished to pat -the backs of the pigs, but was checked with the words, “Pigs -always lie in dirt,” when she was suddenly struck with a new idea; -“Ah, that is why they are called pigs, because they are so dirty: -but what would people call them if they didn’t lie in the dirt?” -History repeats itself: only the other day a teacher wrote to me -that one of his pupils had begun his essay with the words: “Pigs -are rightly called thus, for they are such swine.”</p> - -<p>Words of similar sound are apt to be confused. Some children -have had trouble till mature years with <i>soldier</i> and <i>shoulder</i>, -<i>hassock</i> and <i>cassock</i>, <i>diary</i> and <i>dairy</i>. Lady Glenconner writes: -“They almost invariably say ‘lemon’ [for melon], and if they -make an effort to be more correct they still mispronounce it. -‘Don’t say melling.’ ‘Very well, then, mellum.’” Among other -confusions mentioned in her book I may quote <i>Portugal</i> for ‘purgatory,’ -King Solomon’s three hundred <i>Columbines</i>, David and -his great friend <i>Johnson</i>, Cain and <i>Mabel</i>—all of them showing -how words from spheres beyond the ordinary ken of children are -assimilated to more familiar ones.</p> - -<p>Schuchardt has a story of a little coloured boy in the West -Indies who said, “It’s <i>three</i> hot in this room”: he had heard <i>too</i> = -<i>two</i> and literally wanted to ‘go one better.’ According to Mr. -James Payne, a boy for years substituted for the words ‘<i>Hallowed</i> -be Thy name’ ‘<i>Harold</i> be Thy name.’ Many children imagine -that there is a <i>pole</i> to mark where the North Pole is, and even -(like Helen Keller) that polar bears climb the Pole.</p> - -<p>This leads us naturally to what linguists call ‘popular etymology’—which -is very frequent with children in all countries. -I give a few examples from books. A four-year-old boy had heard -several times about his nurse’s <i>neuralgia</i>, and finally said: “I -don’t think it’s <i>new</i> ralgia, I call it old ralgia.” In this way -<i>anchovies</i> are made into <i>hamchovies</i>, <i>whirlwind</i> into <i>worldwind</i>, and -<i>holiday</i> into <i>hollorday</i>, a day to holloa. Professor Sturtevant -writes: A boy of six or seven had frequently had his ear irrigated; -when similar treatment was applied to his nose, he said that he -had been ‘nosigated’—he had evidently given his own interpretation -to the first syllable of <i>irrigate</i>.</p> - -<p>There is an element of ‘popular etymology’ in the following -joke which was made by one of the Glenconner children when -four years old: “I suppose you wag along in the <i>wagonette</i>, the -<i>landau</i> lands you at the door, and you sweep off in the <i>brougham</i>” -(pronounced broom).</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_123" id="Page_123">[123]</a></span></p> - - -<h4>VI.—§ 7. Shifters.</h4> - -<p>A class of words which presents grave difficulty to children -are those whose meaning differs according to the situation, so -that the child hears them now applied to one thing and now to -another. That was the case with words like ‘father,’ and -‘mother.’ Another such word is ‘enemy.’ When Frans (4.5) -played a war-game with Eggert, he could not get it into his head -that he was Eggert’s enemy: no, it was only Eggert who was the -enemy. A stronger case still is ‘home.’ When a child was asked -if his grandmother had been at home, and answered: “No, grandmother -was at grandfather’s,” it is clear that for him ‘at home’ -meant merely ‘at my home.’ Such words may be called shifters. -When Frans (3.6) heard it said that ‘the one’ (glove) was as -good as ‘the other,’ he asked, “Which is the one, and which is the -other?”—a question not easy to answer.</p> - -<p>The most important class of shifters are the personal pronouns. -The child hears the word ‘I’ meaning ‘Father,’ then -again meaning ‘Mother,’ then again ‘Uncle Peter,’ and so on -unendingly in the most confusing manner. Many people realize -the difficulty thus presented to the child, and to obviate it will -speak of themselves in the third person as ‘Father’ or ‘Grannie’ -or ‘Mary,’ and instead of saying ‘you’ to the child, speak of it -by its name. The child’s understanding of what is said is thus -facilitated for the moment: but on the other hand the child in -this way hears these little words less frequently and is slower in -mastering them.</p> - -<p>If some children soon learn to say ‘I’ while others speak -of themselves by their name, the difference is not entirely due -to the different mental powers of the children, but must be -largely attributed to their elders’ habit of addressing them by -their name or by the pronouns. But Germans would not be -Germans, and philosophers would not be philosophers, if they did -not make the most of the child’s use of ‘I,’ in which they see -the first sign of self-consciousness. The elder Fichte, we are told, -used to celebrate not his son’s birthday, but the day on which he -first spoke of himself as ‘I.’ The sober truth is, I take it, that -a boy who speaks of himself as ‘Jack’ can have just as full and -strong a perception of himself as opposed to the rest of the world -as one who has learnt the little linguistic trick of saying ‘I.’ -But this does not suit some of the great psychologists, as seen -from the following quotation: “The child uses no pronouns; it -speaks of itself in the third person, because it has no idea of its -‘I’ (Ego) nor of its ‘Not-I,’ because it knows nothing of itself -nor of others.”</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_124" id="Page_124">[124]</a></span></p> - -<p>It is not an uncommon case of confusion for a child to use -‘you’ and ‘your’ instead of ‘I,’ ‘me,’ and ‘mine.’ The child -has noticed that ‘will you have?’ means ‘will Jack have?’ so -that he looks on ‘you’ as synonymous with his own name. In -some children this confusion may last for some months. It is -in some cases connected with an inverted word-order, ‘do you’ -meaning ‘I do’—an instance of ‘echoism’ (see below). Sometimes -he will introduce a further complication by using the personal -pronoun of the third person, as though he had started the -sentence with ‘Jack’—then ‘you have his coat’ means ‘I have -my coat.’ He may even speak of the person addressed as ‘I.’ -‘Will I tell a story?’ = ‘Will you tell a story?’ Frans was -liable to use these confused forms between the ages of two and -two and a-half, and I had to quicken his acquaintance with -the right usage by refusing to understand him when he used -the wrong. Beth M. (2.6) was very jealous about her elder -sister touching any of her property, and if the latter sat on -her chair, she would shriek out: “That’s <em>your</em> chair; that’s -<em>your</em> chair.”</p> - -<p>The forms <i>I</i> and <i>me</i> are a common source of difficulty to -English children. Both Tony E. (2.7 to 3.0) and Hilary M. (2.0) -use <i>my</i> for <i>me</i>; it is apparently a kind of blending of <i>me</i> and <i>I</i>; -e.g. “Give Hilary medicine, make <i>my</i> better,” “Maggy is looking -at <i>my</i>,” “Give it <i>my</i>.” See also O’Shea, p. 81: ‘<i>my</i> want to do -this or that; <i>my</i> feel bad; that is <i>my</i> pencil; take <i>my</i> to bed.’</p> - -<p><i>His</i> and <i>her</i> are difficult to distinguish: “An ill lady, <i>his</i> legs -were bad” (Tony E., 3.3).</p> - -<p>C. M. L. (about the end of her second year) constantly used -<i>wour</i> and <i>wours</i> for <i>our</i> and <i>ours</i>, the connexion being with <i>we</i>, as -‘your’ with <i>you</i>. In exactly the same way many Danish children -say <i>vos</i> for <i>os</i> on account of <i>vi</i>. But all this really falls under our -next chapter.</p> - - -<h4>VI.—§ 8. Extent of Vocabulary.</h4> - -<p>The number of words which the child has at command is constantly -increasing, but not uniformly, as the increase is affected -by the child’s health and the new experiences which life presents -to him. In the beginning it is tolerably easy to count the words -the child uses; later it becomes more difficult, as there are times -when his command of speech grows with astonishing rapidity. -There is great difference between individual children. Statistics -have often been given of the extent of a child’s vocabulary at -different ages, or of the results of comparing the vocabularies of -a number of children.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_125" id="Page_125">[125]</a></span></p> - -<p>An American child who was closely observed by his mother, -Mrs. Winfield S. Hall, had in the tenth month 3 words, in the -eleventh 12, in the twelfth 24, in the thirteenth 38, in the fourteenth -48, in the fifteenth 106, in the sixteenth 199, and in the seventeenth -232 words (<cite>Child Study Monthly</cite>, March 1897). During the first -month after the same boy was six years old, slips of paper and -pencils were distributed over the house and practically everything -which the child said was written down. After two or three -days these were collected and the words were put under their -respective letters in a book kept for that purpose. New sets of -papers were put in their places and other lists made. In addition -to this, the record of his life during the past year was examined -and all of his words not already listed were added. In this way -his summer vocabulary was obtained; conversations on certain -topics were also introduced to give him an opportunity to use -words relating to such topics. The list is printed in the <cite>Journal -of Childhood and Adolescence</cite>, January 1902, and is well worth -looking through. It contains 2,688 words, apart from proper -names and numerals. No doubt the child was really in command -of words beyond that total.</p> - -<p>This list perhaps is exceptional on account of the care with -which it was compiled, but as a rule I am afraid that it is not wise -to attach much importance to these tables of statistics. One is -generally left in the dark whether the words counted are those -that the child has understood, or those that it has actually used—two -entirely different things. The passive or receptive knowledge -of a language always goes far beyond the active or -productive.</p> - -<p>One also gets the impression that the observers have often -counted up words without realizing the difficulties involved. What -is to be counted as a word? Are <i>I</i>, <i>me</i>, <i>we</i>, <i>us</i> one word or four? -Is <i>teacup</i> a new word for a child who already knows <i>tea</i> and <i>cup</i>? -And so for all compounds. Is <i>box</i> (= a place at a theatre) the same -word as <i>box</i> (= workbox)? Are the two <i>thats</i> in ‘that man that you -see’ two words or one? It is clear that the process of counting -involves so much that is arbitrary and uncertain that very little -can be built on the statistics arrived at.</p> - -<p>It is more interesting perhaps to determine what words at -a given age a child does <em>not</em> know, or rather does not understand -when he hears them or when they occur in his reading. I have -myself collected such lists, and others have been given me by -teachers, who have been astonished at words which their classes -did not understand. A teacher can never be too cautious about -assuming linguistic knowledge in his pupils—and this applies not -only to foreign words, about which all teachers are on the alert,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_126" id="Page_126">[126]</a></span> -but also to what seem to be quite everyday words of the language -of the country.</p> - -<p>In connexion with the growth of vocabulary one may ask -how many words are possessed by the average grown-up man? -Max Müller in his <cite>Lectures</cite> stated on the authority of an English -clergyman that an English farm labourer has only about three -hundred words at command. This is the most utter balderdash, -but nevertheless it has often been repeated, even by such an -authority on psychology as Wundt. A Danish boy can easily -learn seven hundred English words in the first year of his study -of the language—and are we to believe that a grown Englishman, -even of the lowest class, has no greater stock than such a beginner? -If you go through the list of 2,000 to 3,000 words used by the American -boy of six referred to above, you will easily convince yourself -that they would far from suffice for the rudest labourer. A Swedish -dialectologist, after a minute investigation, found that the vocabulary -of Swedish peasants amounted to at least 26,000 words, -and his view has been confirmed by other investigators. This -conclusion is not invalidated by the fact that Shakespeare in his -works uses only about 20,000 words and Milton in his poems -only about 8,000. It is easy to see what a vast number of words -of daily life are seldom or never required by a poet, especially -a poet like Milton, whose works are on elevated subjects. The -words used by Zola or Kipling or Jack London would no doubt -far exceed those used by Shakespeare and Milton.<a name="FNanchor_21_21" id="FNanchor_21_21"></a><a href="#Footnote_21_21" class="fnanchor">[21]</a></p> - - -<h4>VI.—§ 9. Summary.</h4> - -<p>To sum up, then. There are only very few words that are -explained to the child, and so long as it is quite small it will not -even understand the explanations that might be given. Some it -learns because, when the word is used, the object is at the same -time pointed at, but most words it can only learn by drawing -conclusions about their meaning from the situation in which they -arise or from the context in which they are used. These conclusions, -however, are very uncertain, or they may be correct for -the particular occasion and not hold good on some other, to the -child’s mind quite similar, occasion. Grown-up people are in the -same position with regard to words they do not know, but which -they come across in a book or newspaper, e.g. <i>demise</i>. The meanings -of many words are at the same time extraordinarily vague -and yet so strictly limited (at least in some respects) that the least -deviation is felt as a mistake. Moreover, the child often learns -a secondary or figurative meaning of a word before its simple<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_127" id="Page_127">[127]</a></span> -meaning. But gradually a high degree of accuracy is obtained, -the fittest meanings surviving—that is (in this connexion) those -that agree best with those of the surrounding society. And thus -the individual is merged in society, and the social character of -language asserts itself through the elimination of everything that -is the exclusive property of one person only.</p> - - -<div class="chapter"> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_128" id="Page_128">[128]</a></span></p> - - - - -<h3 class="nobreak"><a name="CHAPTER_VII" id="CHAPTER_VII">CHAPTER VII</a><br /> - -<span class="larger">GRAMMAR</span></h3> -</div> - -<div class="blockquot chaptersummary"> - -<p>§ 1. Introductory. § 2. Substantives and Adjectives. § 3. Verbs. § 4. Degrees -of Consciousness. § 5. Word-formation. § 6. Word-division. -§ 7. Sentences. § 8. Negation and Question. § 9. Prepositions and -Idioms.</p></div> - - -<h4>VII.—§ 1. Introductory.</h4> - -<p>To learn a language it is not enough to know so many words. -They must be connected according to the particular laws of the -particular language. No one tells the child that the plural of -‘hand’ is <i>hands</i>, of ‘foot’ <i>feet</i>, of ‘man’ <i>men</i>, or that the past -of ‘am’ is <i>was</i>, of ‘love’ <i>loved</i>; it is not informed when to say -<i>he</i> and when <i>him</i>, or in what order words must stand. How can -the little fellow learn all this, which when set forth in a grammar -fills many pages and can only be explained by help of many -learned words?</p> - -<p>Many people will say it comes by ‘instinct,’ as if ‘instinct’ -were not one of those fine words which are chiefly used to cover -over what is not understood, because it says so precious little and -seems to say so precious much. But when other people, using a -more everyday expression, say that it all ‘comes quite of itself,’ -I must strongly demur: so far is it from ‘coming of itself’ that -it demands extraordinary labour on the child’s part. The countless -grammatical mistakes made by a child in its early years are -a tell-tale proof of the difficulty which this side of language presents -to him—especially, of course, on account of the unsystematic -character of our flexions and the irregularity of its so-called -‘rules’ of syntax.</p> - -<p>At first each word has only one form for the child, but he -soon discovers that grown-up people use many forms which -resemble one another in different connexions, and he gets a sense -of the purport of these forms, so as to be able to imitate them -himself or even develop similar forms of his own. These latter -forms are what linguists call analogy-formations: by analogy -with ‘Jack’s hat’ and ‘father’s hat’ the child invents such as -‘uncle’s hat’ and ‘Charlie’s hat’—and inasmuch as these forms -are ‘correct,’ no one can say on hearing them whether the child<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_129" id="Page_129">[129]</a></span> -has really invented them or has first heard them used by others. -It is just on account of the fact that the forms developed on the -spur of the moment by each individual are in the vast majority -of instances perfectly identical with those used already by other -people, that the principle of analogy comes to have such paramount -importance in the life of language, for we are all thereby driven -to apply it unhesitatingly to all those instances in which we have -no ready-made form handy: without being conscious of it, each -of us thus now and then really creates something never heard -before by us or anybody else.</p> - - -<h4>VII.—§ 2. Substantives and Adjectives.</h4> - -<p>The <i>-s</i> of the possessive is so regular in English that it is not -difficult for the child to attach it to all words as soon as the -character of the termination has dawned upon him. But at first -there is a time with many children in which words are put together -without change, so that ‘Mother hat’ stands for ‘Mother’s hat’; -cf. also sentences like “Baby want baby milk.”</p> - -<p>After the <i>s</i>-form has been learnt, it is occasionally attached to -pronouns, as <i>you’s</i> for ‘your,’ or more rarely <i>I’s</i> or <i>me’s</i> for ‘my.’</p> - -<p>The <i>-s</i> is now in English added freely to whole groups of words, -as in <i>the King of England’s power</i>, where the old construction was -<i>the King’s power of England</i>, and in <i>Beaumont and Fletcher’s plays</i> -(see on the historical development of this group genitive my -ChE iii.). In Danish we have exactly the same construction, -and Danish children will very frequently extend it, placing the -<i>-s</i> at the end of a whole interrogative sentence, e.g., ‘Hvem er -det da’s?’ (as if in English, ‘Who is it then’s,’ instead of ‘Whose -is it then?’). Dr. H. Bradley once wrote to me: “One of your -samples of children’s Danish is an exact parallel to a bit of child’s -English that I noted long ago. My son, when a little boy, used -to say ‘Who is that-’s’ (with a pause before the <i>s</i>) for ‘Whom -does that belong to?’”</p> - -<p>Irregular plurals are often regularized, <i>gooses</i> for ‘geese,’ -<i>tooths</i>, <i>knifes</i>, etc. O’Shea mentions one child who inversely -formed the plural <i>chieves</i> for <i>chiefs</i> on the analogy of <i>thieves</i>.</p> - -<p>Sometimes the child becomes acquainted with the plural form -first, and from it forms a singular. I have noticed this several -times with Danish children, who had heard the irregular plural -<i>køer</i>, ‘cows,’ and then would say <i>en kø</i> instead of <i>en ko</i> (while -others from the singular <i>ko</i> form a regular plural <i>koer</i>). French -children will say <i>un chevau</i> instead of <i>un cheval</i>.</p> - -<p>In the comparison of adjectives analogy-formations are -frequent with all children, e.g. <i>the littlest</i>, <i>littler</i>, <i>goodest</i>, <i>baddest</i>,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_130" id="Page_130">[130]</a></span> -<i>splendider</i>, etc. One child is reported as saying <i>quicklier</i>, another -as saying <i>quickerly</i>, instead of the received <i>more quickly</i>. A curious -formation is “P’raps it was John, but <i>p’rapser</i> it was Mary.”</p> - -<p>O’Shea (p. 108) notices a period of transition when the child -may use the analogical form at one moment and the traditional -one the next. Thus S. (4.0) will say <i>better</i> perhaps five times -where he says <i>gooder</i> once, but in times of excitement he will -revert to the latter form.</p> - - -<h4>VII.—§ 3. Verbs.</h4> - -<p>The child at first tends to treat all verbs on the analogy of -<i>love</i>, <i>loved</i>, <i>loved</i>, or <i>kiss</i>, <i>kissed</i>, <i>kissed</i>, thus <i>catched</i>, <i>buyed</i>, <i>frowed</i> -for ‘caught, bought, threw or thrown,’ etc., but gradually it learns -the irregular forms, though in the beginning with a good deal of -hesitation and confusion, as <i>done</i> for ‘did,’ <i>hunged</i> for ‘hung,’ -etc. O’Shea gives among other sentences (p. 94): “I <i>drunked</i> -my milk.” “Budd <i>swunged</i> on the rings.” “Grandpa <i>boughted</i> -me a ring.” “I <i>caughted</i> him.” “Aunt Net <i>camed</i> to-day.” -“He <i>gaved</i> it to me”—in all of which the irregular form has been -supplemented with the regular ending.</p> - -<p>A little Danish incident may be thus rendered in English. -The child (4.6): “I have seed a chestnut.” “Where have you -seen it?” He: “I seen it in the garden.” This shows the -influence of the form last heard.</p> - -<p>I once heard a French child say “Il a pleuvy” for ‘plu’ from -‘pleuvoir.’ Other analogical forms are <i>prendu</i> for ‘pris’; <i>assire</i> -for ‘asseoir’ (from the participle <i>assis</i>), <i>se taiser</i> for ‘se taire’ -(from the frequent injunction <i>taisez-vous</i>). Similar formations are -frequent in all countries.</p> - - -<h4>VII.—§ 4. Degrees of Consciousness.</h4> - -<p>Do the little brains <em>think</em> about these different forms and their -uses? Or is the learning of language performed as unconsciously -as the circulation of the blood or the process of digestion? Clearly -they do not think about grammatical forms in the way pursued -in grammar-lessons, with all the forms of the same word arranged -side by side of one another, with rules and exceptions. Still there -is much to lead us to believe that the thing does not go of itself -without some thinking over. The fact that in later years we -speak our language without knowing how we do it, the right words -and phrases coming to us no one knows how or whence, is no -proof that it was always so. We ride a bicycle without giving -a thought to the machine, look around us, talk with a friend,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_131" id="Page_131">[131]</a></span> -etc., and yet there was a time when every movement had to be -mastered by slow and painful efforts. There would be nothing -strange in supposing that it is the same with the acquisition of -language.</p> - -<p>Of course, it would be idle to ask children straight out if they -think about these things, and what they think. But now and -then one notices something which shows that at an early age -they think about points of grammar a good deal. When Frans -was 2.9, he lay in bed not knowing that anyone was in the next -room, and he was heard to say quite plainly: “Små hænder -hedder det—lille hånd—små hænder—lille hænder, næ små -hænder.” (“They are called small hands—little hand—small -hands—little hands, no, small hands”: in Danish <i>lille</i> is not used -with a plural noun.) Similar things have been related to me by -other parents, one child, for instance, practising plural forms -while turning over the leaves of a picture-book, and another one, -who was corrected for saying <i>nak</i> instead of <i>nikkede</i> (‘nodded’), -immediately retorted “<i>Stikker stak, nikker nak</i>,” thus showing -on what analogy he had formed the new preterit. Frequently -children, after giving a form which their own ears tell them is -wrong, at once correct it: ‘I sticked it in—I stuck it in.’</p> - -<p>A German child, not yet two, said: “Papa, hast du mir -was mitgebringt—gebrungen—gebracht?” almost at a breath -(Gabelentz), and another (2.5) said <i>hausin</i>, but then hesitated -and added: “Man kann auch häuser sagen” (Meringer).</p> - - -<h4><a id="VII_5"></a>VII.—§ 5. Word-formation.</h4> - -<p>In the forming of words the child’s brain is just as active. -In many cases, again, it will be impossible to distinguish between -what the child has heard and merely copied and what it has itself -fashioned to a given pattern. If a child, for example, uses the -word ‘kindness,’ it is probable that he has heard it before, but -it is not certain, because he might equally well have formed the -word himself. If, however, we hear him say ‘kindhood,’ or -‘kindship,’ or ‘wideness,’ ‘broadness,’ ‘stupidness,’ we know -for certain that he has made the word up himself, because the -resultant differs from the form used in the language he hears -around him. A child who does not know the word ‘spade’ may -call the tool a <i>digger</i>; he may speak of a lamp as a <i>shine</i>. He -may say <i>it suns</i> when the sun is shining (cf. it rains), or ask his -mother to <i>sauce</i> his pudding. It is quite natural that the enormous -number of nouns and verbs of exactly the same form in English -(<i>blossom</i>, <i>care</i>, <i>drink</i>, <i>end</i>, <i>fight</i>, <i>fish</i>, <i>ape</i>, <i>hand</i>, <i>dress</i>, etc.) should -induce children to make new verbs according to the same pattern;<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_132" id="Page_132">[132]</a></span> -I quote a few of the examples given by O’Shea: “I am going to -<i>basket</i> these apples.” “I <i>pailed</i> him out” (took a turtle out of -a washtub with a pail). “I <i>needled</i> him” (put a needle through -a fly).</p> - -<p>Other words are formed by means of derivative endings, as -<i>sorrified</i>, <i>lessoner</i> (O’Shea 32), <i>flyable</i> (able to fly, Glenconner 3); -“This tooth ought to come out, because it is <i>crookening</i> the others” -(a ten-year-old, told me by Professor Ayres). Compound nouns, -too, may be freely formed, such as <i>wind-ship</i>, <i>eye-curtain</i> (O’Shea), -a <i>fun-copy</i> of Romeo and Juliet (travesty, Glenconner 19). -Bryan L. (ab. 5) said <i>springklers</i> for chrysalises (‘because they -wake up in the spring’).</p> - -<p>Sometimes a child will make up a new word through ‘blending’ -two, as when Hilary M. (1.8 to 2) spoke of <i>rubbish</i> = the -<i>rub</i>ber to pol<i>ish</i> the boots, or of the <i>backet</i>, from <i>ba</i>t and r<i>acquet</i>. -Beth M. (2.0) used <i>breakolate</i>, from <i>break</i>fast and cho<i>colate</i>, and -<i>Chally</i> as a child’s name, a compound of two sisters, <i>Cha</i>rity and -S<i>ally</i>.</p> - - -<h4><a id="VII_6"></a>VII.—§ 6. Word-division.</h4> - -<p>We are so accustomed to see sentences in writing or print -with a little space left after each word, that we have got altogether -wrong conceptions of language as it is spoken. Here words -follow one another without the least pause till the speaker -hesitates for a word or has come to the end of what he has to -say. ‘Not at all’ sounds like ‘not a tall.’ It therefore requires -in many cases a great deal of comparison and analysis on the -part of the child to find out what is one and what two or three -words. We have seen before that the question ‘How big is the -boy?’ is to the child a single expression, beyond his powers of -analysis, and to a much later age it is the same with other phrases. -The child, then, may make false divisions, and either treat a group -of words as one word or one word as a group of words. A girl -(2.6) used the term ‘Tanobijeu’ whenever she wished her -younger brother to get out of her way. Her parents finally discovered -that she had caught up and shortened a phrase that -some older children had used—‘’Tend to your own business’ -(O’Shea).</p> - -<p>A child, addressing her cousin as ‘Aunt Katie,’ was told “I -am not Aunt Katie, I am merely Katie.” Next day she said: -“Good-morning, Aunt merely-Katie” (translated). A child who -had been praised with the words, ‘You are a good boy,’ said to -his mother, “You’re a good boy, mother” (2.8).</p> - -<p>Cecil H. (4.0) came back from a party and said that she had -been given something very nice to eat. “What was it?”<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_133" id="Page_133">[133]</a></span> -“Rats.” “No, no.” “Well, it was mice then.” She had been -asked if she would have ‘some-ice,’ and had taken it to be ‘some -mice.’ S. L. (2.6) constantly used ‘<i>ababana</i>’ for ‘banana’; -the form seems to have come from the question “Will you -have a banana?” but was used in such a sentence as “May I -have an ababana?” Children will often say <i>napple</i> for <i>apple</i> -through a misdivision of <i>an-apple</i>, and <i>normous</i> for <i>enormous</i>; -cf. Ch. X § <a href="#X_2">2</a>.</p> - -<p>A few examples may be added from children’s speech in other -countries. Ronjat’s child said <i>nésey</i> for ‘échelle,’ starting -from u'ne‿échelle; Grammont’s child said <i>un tarbre</i>, starting -from <i>cet arbre</i>, and <i>ce nos</i> for ‘cet os,’ from <i>un os</i>; a German child -said <i>motel</i> for ‘hotel,’ starting from the combination ‘im‿(h)‿otel’ -(Stern). Many German children say <i>arrhöe</i>, because they take -the first syllable of ‘diarrhöe’ as the feminine article. A Dutch -child heard the phrase ‘’k weet ’t niet’ (‘I don’t know’), and said -“Papa, hij kweet ’t niet” (Van Ginneken). A Danish child heard -his father say, “Jeg skal op i <i>ministeriet</i>” (“I’m going to the Government -office”), and took the first syllable as <i>min</i> (my); consequently -he asked, “Skal du i dinisteriet?” A French child was told that -they expected Munkácsy (the celebrated painter, in French pronounced -as Mon-), and asked his aunt: “Est-ce que <i>ton Kácsy</i> -ne viendra pas?” Antoinette K. (7.), in reply to “C’est bien, je -te félicite,” said, “Eh bien, moi je ne te <i>fais</i> pas <i>licite</i>.”</p> - -<p>The German ‘Ich habe <i>antgewortet</i>’ is obviously on the analogy -of <i>angenommen</i>, etc. (Meringer). Danish children not unfrequently -take the verb <i>telefonere</i> as two words, and in the interrogative -form will place the personal pronoun in the middle of it, ‘Tele -hun fonerer?’ (‘Does she telephone?’) A girl asked to see <i>ele -mer fant</i> (as if in English she had said ‘ele more phant’). Cf. -‘Give me <i>more handier-cap</i>’ for ‘Give me a greater handicap’—in -a foot-race (O’Shea 108).</p> - - -<h4>VII.—§ 7. Sentences.</h4> - -<p>In the first period the child knows nothing of grammar: it -does not connect words together, far less form sentences, but each -word stands by itself. ‘Up’ means what we should express by -a whole sentence, ‘I want to get up,’ or ‘Lift me up’; ‘Hat’ -means ‘Put on my hat,’ or ‘I want to put my hat on,’ or ‘I have -my hat on,’ or ‘Mamma has a new hat on’; ‘Father’ can be -either ‘Here comes Father,’ or ‘This is Father,’ or ‘He is called -Father,’ or ‘I want Father to come to me,’ or ‘I want this or -that from Father.’ This particular group of sounds is vaguely -associated with the mental picture of the person in question,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_134" id="Page_134">[134]</a></span> -and is uttered at the sight of him or at the mere wish to see him -or something else in connexion with him.</p> - -<p>When we say that such a word means what we should express -by a whole sentence, this does not amount to saying that the -child’s ‘Up’ <em>is</em> a sentence, or a sentence-word, as many of those -who have written about these questions have said. We might -just as well assert that clapping our hands is a sentence, because -it expresses the same idea (or the same frame of mind) that is -otherwise expressed by the whole sentence ‘This is splendid.’ -The word ‘sentence’ presupposes a certain grammatical structure, -which is wanting in the child’s utterance.</p> - -<p>Many investigators have asserted that the child’s first utterances -are not means of imparting information, but always an -expression of the child’s wishes and requirements. This is certainly -somewhat of an exaggeration, since the child quite clearly -can make known its joy at seeing a hat or a plaything, or at -merely being able to recognize it and remember the word for it; -but the statement still contains a great deal of truth, for without -strong feelings a child would not say much, and it is a great -stimulus to talk that he very soon discovers that he gets his wishes -fulfilled more easily when he makes them known by means of -certain sounds.</p> - -<p>Frans (1.7) was accustomed to express his longings in general -by help of a long <i>m</i> with rising tone, while at the same time -stretching out his hand towards the particular thing that he -longed for. This he did, for example, at dinner, when he wanted -water. One day his mother said, “Now see if you can say <i>vand</i> -(water),” and at once he said what was an approach to the word, -and was delighted at getting something to drink by that means. -A moment later he repeated what he had said, and was inexpressibly -delighted to have found the password which at once brought him -something to drink. This was repeated several times. Next day, -when his father was pouring out water for himself, the boy again -said ‘van,’ ‘van,’ and was duly rewarded. He had not heard -the word during the intervening twenty-four hours, and nothing -had been done to remind him of it. After some repetitions (for -he only got a few drops at a time) he pronounced the word for -the first time quite correctly. The day after, the same thing -occurred; the word was never heard but at dinner. When he -became rather a nuisance with his constant cries for water, his -mother said: “Say please”—and immediately came his “Bebe -vand” (“Water, please”)—his first attempt to put two words -together.</p> - -<p>Later—in this formless period—the child puts more and more -words together, often in quite haphazard order: ‘My go snow’<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_135" id="Page_135">[135]</a></span> -(‘I want to go out into the snow’), etc. A Danish child of 2.1 -said the Danish words (imperfectly pronounced, of course) corresponding -to “Oh papa lamp mother boom,” when his mother had -struck his father’s lamp with a bang. Another child said “Papa -hen corn cap” when he saw his father give corn to the hens out -of his cap.</p> - -<p>When Frans was 1.10, passing a post-office (which Danes call -‘posthouse’), he said of his own accord the Danish words for -‘post, house, bring, letter’(a pause between the successive words)—I -suppose that the day before he had heard a sentence in which -these words occurred. In the same month, when he had thrown -a ball a long way, he said what would be in English ‘dat was -good.’ This was not a sentence which he had put together for -himself, but a mere repetition of what had been said to him, clearly -conceived as a whole, and equivalent to ‘bravo.’ Sentences of -this kind, however, though taken as units, prepare the way for -the understanding of the words ‘that’ and ‘was’ when they turn -up in other connexions.</p> - -<p>One thing which plays a great rôle in children’s acquisition -of language, and especially in their early attempts to form sentences, -is Echoism: the fact that children echo what is said to -them. When one is learning a foreign language, it is an excellent -method to try to imitate to oneself in silence every sentence which -one hears spoken by a native. By that means the turns of phrases, -the order of words, the intonation of the sentence are firmly fixed -in the memory—so that they can be recalled when required, or -rather recur to one quite spontaneously without an effort. What -the grown man does of conscious purpose our children to a large -extent do without a thought—that is, they repeat aloud what -they have just heard, either the whole, if it is a very short sentence, -or more commonly the conclusion, as much of it as they can retain -in their short memories. The result is a matter of chance—it -need not always have a meaning or consist of entire words. Much, -clearly, is repeated without being understood, much, again, without -being more than half understood. Take, for example (translated):</p> - -<p>Shall I carry you?—Frans (1.9): Carry you.</p> - -<p>Shall Mother carry Frans?—Carry Frans.</p> - -<p>The sky is so blue.—So boo.</p> - -<p>I shall take an umbrella.—Take rella.</p> - -<p>Though this feature in a child’s mental history has been often -noticed, no one seems to have seen its full significance. One of -the acutest observers (Meumann, p. 28) even says that it has no -importance in the development of the child’s speech. On the -contrary, I think that Echoism explains very much indeed. First -let us bear in mind the mutilated forms of words which a child<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_136" id="Page_136">[136]</a></span> -uses: <i>’chine</i> for machine, <i>’gar</i> for cigar, <i>Trix</i> for Beatrix, etc. -Then a child’s frequent use of an indirect form of question rather -than direct, ‘Why you smoke, Father?’ which can hardly be -explained except as an echo of sentences like ‘Tell me why you -smoke.’ This plays a greater rôle in Danish than in English, -and the corresponding form of the sentence has been frequently -remarked by Danish parents. Another feature which is nearly -constant with Danish children at the age when echoing is habitual -is the inverted word order: this is used after an initial adverb -(<i>nu kommer hun</i>, etc.), but the child will use it in all cases (<i>kommer -hun</i>, etc.). Further, the extremely frequent use of the infinitive, -because the child hears it towards the end of a sentence, where -it is dependent on a preceding <i>can</i>, or <i>may</i>, or <i>must</i>. ‘Not eat -that’ is a child’s echo of ‘You mustn’t eat that.’ In German -this has become the ordinary form of official order: “Nicht -hinauslehnen” (“Do not lean out of the window”).</p> - - -<h4>VII.—§ 8. Negation and Question.</h4> - -<p>Most children learn to say ‘no’ before they can say ‘yes’—simply -because negation is a stronger expression of feeling than -affirmation. Many little children use <i>nenenene</i> (short <i>ĕ</i>) as a -natural expression of fretfulness and discomfort. It is perhaps -so natural that it need not be learnt: there is good reason for -the fact that in so many languages words of negation begin with -<i>n</i> (or <i>m</i>). Sometimes the <i>n</i> is heard without a vowel: it is only -the gesture of ‘turning up one’s nose’ made audible.</p> - -<p>At first the child does not express what it is that it does -not want—it merely puts it away with its hand, pushes away, -for example, what is too hot for it. But when it begins to express -in words what it is that it will not have, it does so often in the -form ‘Bread no,’ often with a pause between the words, as two -separate utterances, as when we might say, in our fuller forms of -expression: ‘Do you offer me bread? I won’t hear of it.’ So -with verbs: ‘I sleep no.’ Thus with many Danish children, -and I find the same phenomenon mentioned with regard to children -of different nations. Tracy says (p. 136): “Negation was expressed -by an affirmative sentence, with an emphatic <i>no</i> tacked on at -the end, exactly as the deaf-mutes do.” The blind-deaf Helen -Keller, when she felt her little sister’s mouth and her mother -spelt ‘teeth’ to her, answered: “Baby teeth—no, baby eat—no,” -i.e., baby cannot eat because she has no teeth. In the same -way, in German, ‘Stul nei nei—schossel,’ i.e., I won’t sit on the -chair, but in your lap, and in French, ‘Papa abeié ato non, iaian -abeié non,’ i.e., Papa n’est pas encore habillé, Suzanne n’est pas<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_137" id="Page_137">[137]</a></span> -habillée (Stern, 189, 203). It seems thus that this mode of expression -will crop up everywhere as an emphatic negation.</p> - -<p>Interrogative sentences come generally rather early—it would -be better to say questions, because at first they do not take the -form of interrogative sentences, the interrogation being expressed -by bearing, look or gesture: when it begins to be expressed by -intonation we are on the way to question expressed in speech. -Some of the earliest questions have to do with place: ‘Where -is...?’ The child very often hears such sentences as ‘Where -is its little nose?’ which are not really meant as questions; we -may also remark that questions of this type are of great practical -importance for the little thing, who soon uses them to beg for -something which has been taken away from him or is out of his -reach. Other early questions are ‘What’s that?’ and ‘Who?’</p> - -<p>Later—generally, it would seem, at the close of the third year—questions -with ‘why’ crop up: these are of the utmost importance -for the child’s understanding of the whole world and its -manifold occurrences, and, however tiresome they may be when -they come in long strings, no one who wishes well to his child -will venture to discourage them. Questions about time, such as -‘When? How long?’ appear much later, owing to the child’s -difficulty in acquiring exact ideas about time.</p> - -<p>Children often find a difficulty in double questions, and when -asked ‘Will you have brown bread or white?’ merely answer -the last word with ‘Yes.’ So in reply to ‘Is that red or yellow?’ -‘Yes’ means ‘yellow’ (taken from a child of 4.11). I think -this is an instance of the short memories of children, who have -already at the end of the question forgotten the beginning, but -Professor Mawer thinks that the real difficulty here is in making -a choice: they cannot decide between alternatives: usually they -are silent, and if they say ‘Yes’ it only means that they do not -want to go without both or feel that they must say something.</p> - - -<h4>VII.—§ 9. Prepositions and Idioms.</h4> - -<p>Prepositions are of very late growth in a child’s language. -Much attention has been given to the point, and Stern has collected -statistics of the ages at which various children have first used -prepositions: the earliest age is 1.10, the average age is 2.3. -It does not, however, seem to me to be a matter of much interest -how early an individual word of some particular grammatical -class is first used; it is much more interesting to follow up the -gradual growth of the child’s command of this class and to see -how the first inevitable mistakes and confusions arise in the -little brain. Stern makes the interesting remark that when the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_138" id="Page_138">[138]</a></span> -tendency to use prepositions first appears, it grows far more -rapidly than the power to discriminate one preposition from -another; with his own children there came a time when they -employed the same word as a sort of universal preposition in all -relations. Hilda used <i>von</i>, Eva <i>auf</i>. I have never observed -anything corresponding to this among Danish children.</p> - -<p>All children start by putting the words for the most important -concepts together without connective words, so ‘Leave go bedroom’ -(‘May I have leave to go into the bedroom?’), ‘Out road’ -(‘I am going out on the road’). The first use of prepositions is -always in set phrases learnt as wholes, like ‘go to school,’ ‘go to -pieces,’ ‘lie in bed,’ ‘at dinner.’ Not till later comes the power -of using prepositions in free combinations, and it is then that -mistakes appear. Nor is this surprising, since in all languages -prepositional usage contains much that is peculiar and arbitrary, -chiefly because when we once pass beyond a few quite clear applications -of time and place, the relations to be expressed become so -vague and indefinite, that logically one preposition might often -seem just as right as another, although usage has laid down a -fast law that this preposition must be used in this case and that -in another. I noted down a great number of mistakes my own -boy made in these words, but in all cases I was able to find some -synonymous or antonymous expression in which the preposition -used would have been the correct one, and which may have been -vaguely before his mind.</p> - -<p>The multiple meanings of prepositions sometimes have strange -results. A little girl was in her bath, and hearing her mother -say: “I will wash you in a moment,” answered: “No, you must -wash me in the bath”! She was led astray by the two uses of -<i>in</i>. We know of the child at school who was asked “What is an -average?” and said: “What the hen lays eggs on.” Even men -of science are similarly led astray by prepositions. It is perfectly -natural to say that something has passed over the threshold of -consciousness: the metaphor is from the way in which you enter -a house by stepping over the threshold. If the metaphor were -kept, the opposite situation would be expressed by the statement -that such and such a thing is outside the threshold of consciousness. -But psychologists, in the thoughtless way of little children, -take <i>under</i> to be always the opposite of <i>over</i>, and so speak of things -‘lying under (or below) the threshold of our consciousness,’ and have -even invented a Latin word for the unconscious, viz. <i>subliminal</i>.<a name="FNanchor_22_22" id="FNanchor_22_22"></a><a href="#Footnote_22_22" class="fnanchor">[22]</a></p> -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_139" id="Page_139">[139]</a></span></p> -<p>Children may use verbs with an object which require a preposition -(‘Will you <i>wait</i> me?’), or which are only used intransitively -(‘Will you <i>jump</i> me?’), or they may mix up an infinitival with a -direct construction (‘Could you hear me sneezed?’). But it is -surely needless to multiply examples.</p> - -<p>When many years ago, in my <cite>Progress in Language</cite>, I spoke -of the advantages, even to natives, of simplicity in linguistic -structure, Professor Herman Möller, in a learned review, objected -to me that to the adult learning a foreign tongue the chief difficulty -consists in “the countless chicaneries due to the tyrannical and -capricious usage, whose tricks there is no calculating; but these -offer to the native child no such difficulty as morphology may,” -and again, in speaking of the choice of various prepositions, which -is far from easy to the foreigner, he says: “But any considerable -mental exertion on the part of the native child learning its -mother-tongue is here, of course, out of the question.” Such -assertions as these cannot be founded on actual observation; at -any rate, it is my experience in listening to children’s talk that -long after they have reached the point where they make hardly -any mistake in pronunciation and verbal forms, etc., they are -still capable of using many turns of speech which are utterly -opposed to the spirit of the language, and which are in the main -of the same kind as those which foreigners are apt to fall into. -Many of the child’s mistakes are due to mixtures or blendings of -two turns of expression, and not a few of them may be logically -justified. But learning a language implies among other things -learning what you may <em>not</em> say in the language, even though -no reasonable ground can be given for the prohibition.</p> - - - -<div class="chapter"> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_140" id="Page_140">[140]</a></span></p> - - - - - -<h3 class="nobreak"><a name="CHAPTER_VIII" id="CHAPTER_VIII">CHAPTER VIII</a><br /> - -<span class="larger">SOME FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEMS</span></h3> -</div> - -<div class="blockquot chaptersummary"> - -<p>§ 1. Why is the Native Language learnt so well? § 2. Natural Ability -and Sex. § 3. Mother-tongue and Other Tongue. § 4. Playing at -Language. § 5. Secret Languages. § 6. Onomatopœia. § 7. Word-inventions. -§ 8. ‘Mamma’ and ‘Papa.’</p></div> - - -<h4>VIII.—§ 1. Why is the Native Language learnt so well?</h4> - -<p>How does it happen that children in general learn their mother-tongue -so well? That this is a problem becomes clear when we -contrast a child’s first acquisition of its mother-tongue with the -later acquisition of any foreign tongue. The contrast is indeed -striking and manifold: <em>here</em> we have a quite little child, without -experience or prepossessions; <em>there</em> a bigger child, or it may be -a grown-up person with all sorts of knowledge and powers: <em>here</em> a -haphazard method of procedure; <em>there</em> the whole task laid out in -a system (for even in the schoolbooks that do not follow the old -grammatical system there is a certain definite order of progress -from more elementary to more difficult matters): <em>here</em> no professional -teachers, but chance parents, brothers and sisters, nursery-maids -and playmates; <em>there</em> teachers trained for many years -specially to teach languages: <em>here</em> only oral instruction; <em>there</em> not -only that, but reading-books, dictionaries and other assistance. -And yet this is the result: <em>here</em> complete and exact command -of the language as a native speaks it, however stupid the children; -<em>there</em>, in most cases, even with people otherwise highly gifted, a -defective and inexact command of the language. On what does -this difference depend?</p> - -<p>The problem has never been elucidated or canvassed from all -sides, but here and there one finds a partial answer, often given -out to be a complete answer. Often one side of the question only -is considered, that which relates to sounds, as if the whole problem -had been solved when one had found a reason for children acquiring -a better pronunciation of their mother-tongue than one generally -gets in later life of a foreign speech.</p> - -<p>Many people accordingly tell us that children’s organs of speech -are especially flexible, but that this suppleness of the tongue and -lips is lost in later life. This explanation, however, does not hold<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_141" id="Page_141">[141]</a></span> -water, as is shown sufficiently by the countless mistakes in sound -made by children. If their organs were as flexible as is pretended, -they could learn sounds correctly at once, while as a matter of -fact it takes a long time before all the sounds and groups of sounds -are imitated with tolerable accuracy. Suppleness is not something -which is original, but something acquired later, and acquired -with no small difficulty, and then only with regard to the sounds -of one’s own language, and not universally.</p> - -<p>The same applies to the second answer (given by Bremer, -<cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Deutsche Phonetik</cite>, 2), namely, that the child’s ear is especially -sensitive to impressions. The ear also requires development, -since at first it can scarcely detect a number of <i>nuances</i> which we -grown-up people hear most distinctly.</p> - -<p>Some people say that the reason why a child learns its native -language so well is that it has no established habits to contend -against. But that is not right either: as any good observer can -see, the process by which the child acquires sounds is pursued -through a continuous struggle against bad habits which it has -acquired at an earlier stage and which may often have rooted -themselves remarkably firmly.</p> - -<p>Sweet (H 19) says among other things that the conditions of -learning vernacular sounds are so favourable because the child -has nothing else to do at the time. On the contrary, one may say -that the child has an enormous deal to do while it is learning the -language; it is at that time active beyond all belief: in a short -time it subdues wider tracts than it ever does later in a much -longer time. The more wonderful is it that along with those -tasks it finds strength to learn its mother-tongue and its many -refinements and crooked turns.</p> - -<p>Some point to heredity and say that a child learns that language -most easily which it is disposed beforehand to learn by its ancestry, -or in other words that there are inherited convolutions of the -brain which take in this language better than any other. Perhaps -there is something in this, but we have no definite, carefully ascertained -facts. Against the theory stands the fact that the children -of immigrants acquire the language of their foster-country to -all appearance just as surely and quickly as children of the same -age whose forefathers have been in the country for ages. This -may be observed in England, in Denmark, and still more in North -America. Environment clearly has greater influence than descent.</p> - -<p>The real answer in my opinion (which is not claimed to be -absolutely new in every respect) lies partly in the child itself, -partly in the behaviour towards it of the people around it. In -the first place, the time of learning the mother-tongue is the most -favourable of all, namely, the first years of life. If one assumes<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_142" id="Page_142">[142]</a></span> -that mental endowment means the capacity for development, -without doubt all children are best endowed in their first years: -from birth onwards there is a steady decline in the power of grasping -what is new and of accommodating oneself to it. With some -this decline is a very rapid one—they quickly become fossilized -and unable to make a change in their habits; with others one -can notice a happy power of development even in old age; but -no one keeps very long in its full range the adaptability of his -first years.</p> - -<p>Further, we must remember that the child has far more -abundant opportunities of hearing his mother-tongue than one -gets, as a rule, with any language one learns later. He hears it -from morning to night, and, be it noted, in its genuine shape, -with the right pronunciation, right intonation, right use of words -and right syntax: the language comes to him as a fresh, ever-bubbling -spring. Even before he begins to say anything himself, -his first understanding of the language is made easier by the habit -that mothers and nurses have of repeating the same phrases with -slight alterations, and at the same time doing the thing which -they are talking about. “Now we must wash the little face, now -we must wash the little forehead, now we must wash the little -nose, now we must wash the little chin, now we must wash the -little ear,” etc. If <em>men</em> had to attend to their children, they would -never use so many words—but in that case the child would scarcely -learn to understand and talk as soon as it does when it is cared -for by women.<a name="FNanchor_23_23" id="FNanchor_23_23"></a><a href="#Footnote_23_23" class="fnanchor">[23]</a></p> - -<p>Then the child has, as it were, private lessons in its mother-tongue -all the year round. There is nothing of the kind in the -learning of a language later, when at most one has six hours a -week and generally shares them with others. The child has another -priceless advantage: he hears the language in all possible situations -and under such conditions that language and situation ever -correspond exactly to one another and mutually illustrate one -another. Gesture and facial expression harmonize with the words<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_143" id="Page_143">[143]</a></span> -uttered and keep the child to a right understanding. Here there -is nothing unnatural, such as is often the case in a language-lesson -in later years, when one talks about ice and snow in June or -excessive heat in January. And what the child hears is just what -immediately concerns him and interests him, and again and again -his own attempts at speech lead to the fulfilment of his dearest -wishes, so that his command of language has great practical -advantages for him.</p> - -<p>Along with what he himself sees the use of, he hears a great -deal which does not directly concern him, but goes into the little -brain and is stored up there to turn up again later. Nothing is -heard but leaves its traces, and at times one is astonished to -discover what has been preserved, and with what exactness. One -day, when Frans was 4.11 old, he suddenly said: “Yesterday—isn’t -there some who say yesterday?” (giving <i>yesterday</i> with the -correct English pronunciation), and when I said that it was an -English word, he went on: “Yes, it is Mrs. B.: she often says -like that, yesterday.” Now, it was three weeks since that lady -had called at the house and talked English. It is a well-known -fact that hypnotized persons can sometimes say whole sentences -in a language which they do not know, but have merely heard in -childhood. In books about children’s language there are many -remarkable accounts of such linguistic memories which had lain -buried for long stretches of time. A child who had spent the -first eighteen months of its life in Silesia and then came to Berlin, -where it had no opportunity of hearing the Silesian pronunciation, -at the age of five suddenly came out with a number of Silesian -expressions, which could not after the most careful investigation -be traced to any other source than to the time before it could talk -(Stern, 257 ff.). Grammont has a story of a little French girl, -whose nurse had talked French with a strong Italian accent; the -child did not begin to speak till a month after this nurse had left, -but pronounced many words with Italian sounds, and some of -these peculiarities stuck to the child till the age of three.</p> - -<p>We may also remark that the baby’s teachers, though, regarded -as teachers of language, they may not be absolutely ideal, still -have some advantages over those one encounters as a rule later in -life. The relation between them and the child is far more cordial -and personal, just because they are not teachers first and foremost. -They are immensely interested in every little advance the child -makes. The most awkward attempt meets with sympathy, often -with admiration, while its defects and imperfections never expose -it to a breath of unkind criticism. There is a Slavonic proverb, -“If you wish to talk well, you must murder the language first.” -But this is very often overlooked by teachers of language, who<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_144" id="Page_144">[144]</a></span> -demand faultless accuracy from the beginning, and often keep -their pupils grinding so long at some little part of the subject that -their desire to learn the language is weakened or gone for good. -There is nothing of this sort in the child’s first learning of his -language.</p> - -<p>It is here that our distinction between the two periods comes -in, that of the child’s own separate ‘little language’ and that -of the common or social language. In the first period the little -one is the centre of a narrow circle of his own, which waits for -each little syllable that falls from his lips as though it were a -grain of gold. What teachers of languages in later years would -rejoice at hearing such forms as we saw before used in the time -of the child’s ‘little language,’ <i>fant</i> or <i>vat</i> or <i>ham</i> for ‘elephant’? -But the mother really does rejoice: she laughs and exults when -he can use these syllables about his toy-elephant, she throws the -cloak of her love over the defects and mistakes in the little one’s -imitations of words, she remembers again and again what his -strange sounds stand for, and her eager sympathy transforms -the first and most difficult steps on the path of language to the -merriest game.</p> - -<p>It would not do, however, for the child’s ‘little language’ and -its dreadful mistakes to become fixed. This might easily happen, -if the child were never out of the narrow circle of its own family, -which knows and recognizes its ‘little language.’ But this is -stopped because it comes more and more into contact with others—uncles -and aunts, and especially little cousins and playmates: -more and more often it happens that the mutilated words are not -understood, and are corrected and made fun of, and the child -is incited in this way to steady improvement: the ‘little language’ -gradually gives place to the ‘common language,’ as the child -becomes a member of a social group larger than that of his own -little home.</p> - -<p>We have now probably found the chief reasons why a child -learns his mother-tongue better than even a grown-up person -who has been for a long time in a foreign country learns the -language of his environment. But it is also a contributory reason -that the child’s linguistic needs, to begin with, are far more limited -than those of the man who wishes to be able to talk about anything, -or at any rate about something. Much more is also linguistically -required of the latter, and he must have recourse to -language to get all his needs satisfied, while the baby is well looked -after even if it says nothing but <i>wawawawa</i>. So the baby has -longer time to store up his impressions and continue his experiments, -until by trying again and again he at length gets his lesson -learnt in all its tiny details, while the man in the foreign country,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_145" id="Page_145">[145]</a></span> -who <em>must</em> make himself understood, as a rule goes on trying only -till he has acquired a form of speech which he finds natives understand: -at this point he will generally stop, at any rate as far as -pronunciation and the construction of sentences are concerned -(while his vocabulary may be largely increased). But this ‘just -recognizable’ language is incorrect in thousands of small details, -and, inasmuch as bad little habits quickly become fixed, the -kind of language is produced which we know so well in the case -of resident foreigners—who need hardly open their lips before -everyone knows they are not natives, and before a practised ear -can detect the country they hail from.<a name="FNanchor_24_24" id="FNanchor_24_24"></a><a href="#Footnote_24_24" class="fnanchor">[24]</a></p> - - -<h4>VIII.—§ 2. Natural Ability and Sex.</h4> - -<p>An important factor in the acquisition of language which we -have not considered is naturally the individuality of the child. -Parents are apt to draw conclusions as to the abilities of their -young hopeful from the rapidity with which he learns to talk; -but those who are in despair because their Tommy cannot say a -single word when their neighbours’ Harry can say a great deal -may take comfort. Slowness in talking <em>may</em> of course mean deficiency -of ability, or even idiocy, but not necessarily. A child -who chatters early may remain a chatterer all his life, and children -whose motto is ‘Slow and sure’ may turn out the deepest, most -independent and most trustworthy characters in the end. There -are some children who cannot be made to say a single word for a -long time, and then suddenly come out with a whole sentence, -which shows how much has been quietly fructifying in their brain. -Carlyle was one of these: after eleven months of taciturnity he -heard a child cry, and astonished all by saying, “What ails wee -Jock?” Edmund Gosse has a similar story of his own childhood, -and other examples have been recorded elsewhere (Meringer, 194; -Stern, 257).</p> -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_146" id="Page_146">[146]</a></span></p> -<p>The linguistic development of an individual child is not always -in a steady rising line, but in a series of waves. A child who -seems to have a boundless power of acquiring language suddenly -stands still or even goes back for a short time. The cause may be -sickness, cutting teeth, learning to walk, or often a removal to -new surroundings or an open-air life in summer. Under such -circumstances even the word ‘I’ may be lost for a time.</p> - -<p>Some children develop very rapidly for some years until they -have reached a certain point, where they stop altogether, while -others retain the power to develop steadily to a much later age. -It is the same with some races: negro children in American schools -may, while they are little, be up to the standard of their white -schoolfellows, whom they cannot cope with in later life.</p> - -<p>The two sexes differ very greatly in regard to speech—as in -regard to most other things. Little girls, on the average, learn -to talk earlier and more quickly than boys; they outstrip them -in talking correctly; their pronunciation is not spoilt by the many -bad habits and awkwardnesses so often found in boys. It has -been proved by statistics in many countries that there are far -more stammerers and bad speakers among boys and men than -among girls and women. The general receptivity of women, their -great power of, and pleasure in, imitation, their histrionic talent, -if one may so say—all this is a help to them at an early age, so that -they can get into other people’s way of talking with greater agility -than boys of the same age.</p> - -<p>Everything that is conventional in language, everything in -which the only thing of importance is to be in agreement with -those around you, is the girls’ strong point. Boys may often -show a certain reluctance to do exactly as others do: the peculiarities -of their ‘little language’ are retained by them longer -than by girls, and they will sometimes steadily refuse to correct -their own abnormalities, which is very seldom the case with girls. -Gaucherie and originality thus are two points between which the -speech of boys is constantly oscillating. Cf. below, Ch. <a href="#Page_237">XIII.</a></p> - - -<h4>VIII.—§ 3. Mother-tongue and Other Tongue.</h4> - -<p>The expression “mother-tongue” should not be understood -too literally: the language which the child acquires naturally -is not, or not always, his mother’s language. When a mother -speaks with a foreign accent or in a pronounced dialect, her children -as a rule speak their language as correctly as other children, or -keep only the slightest tinge of their mother’s peculiarities. I -have seen this very distinctly in many Danish families, in which -the mother has kept up her Norwegian language all her life, and in<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_147" id="Page_147">[147]</a></span> -which the children have spoken pure Danish. Thus also in two -families I know, in which a strong Swedish accent in one mother, -and an unmistakable American pronunciation in the other, have -not prevented the children from speaking Danish exactly as if -their mothers had been born and bred in Denmark. I cannot, -therefore, agree with Passy, who says that the child learns his -mother’s sound system (Ch § 32), or with Dauzat’s dictum to the -same effect (V 20). The father, as a rule, has still less influence; -but what is decisive is the speech of those with whom the child -comes in closest contact from the age of three or so, thus frequently -servants, but even more effectually playfellows of his own age -or rather slightly older than himself, with whom he is constantly -thrown together for hours at a time and whose prattle is constantly -in his ears at the most impressionable age, while he may not see -and hear his father and mother except for a short time every day, -at meals and on such occasions. It is also a well-known fact -that the children of Danish parents in Greenland often learn the -Eskimo language before Danish; and Meinhof says that German -children in the African colonies will often learn the language of -the natives earlier than German (MSA 139).</p> - -<p>This is by no means depreciating the mother’s influence, which -is strong indeed, but chiefly in the first period, that of the child’s -‘little language.’ But that is the time when the child’s imitative -power is weakest. His exact attention to the minutiæ of language -dates from the time when he is thrown into a wider circle and -has to make himself understood by many, so that his language -becomes really identical with that of the community, where -formerly he and his mother would rest contented with what <em>they</em>, -but hardly anyone else, could understand.</p> - -<p>The influence of children on children cannot be overestimated.<a name="FNanchor_25_25" id="FNanchor_25_25"></a><a href="#Footnote_25_25" class="fnanchor">[25]</a> -Boys at school make fun of any peculiarities of speech noticed in -schoolfellows who come from some other part of the country. -Kipling tells us in <cite>Stalky and Co.</cite> how Stalky and Beetle carefully -<i>kicked</i> McTurk out of his Irish dialect. When I read this, I was -vividly reminded of the identical method my new friends applied -to me when at the age of ten I was transplanted from Jutland -to a school in Seeland and excited their merriment through some -Jutlandish expressions and intonations. And so we may say that -the most important factor in spreading the common or standard -language is children themselves.</p> - -<p>It often happens that children who are compelled at home to -talk without any admixture of dialect talk pure dialect when -playing with their schoolfellows out of doors. They can keep the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_148" id="Page_148">[148]</a></span> -two forms of speech distinct. In the same way they can learn -two languages less closely connected. At times this results in -very strange blendings, at least for a time; but many children -will easily pass from one language to the other without mixing -them up, especially if they come in contact with the two languages -in different surroundings or on the lips of different people.</p> - -<p>It is, of course, an advantage for a child to be familiar with -two languages: but without doubt the advantage may be, and -generally is, purchased too dear. First of all the child in question -hardly learns either of the two languages as perfectly as he would -have done if he had limited himself to one. It may seem, on the -surface, as if he talked just like a native, but he does not really -command the fine points of the language. Has any bilingual child -ever developed into a great artist in speech, a poet or orator?</p> - -<p>Secondly, the brain effort required to master two languages -instead of one certainly diminishes the child’s power of learning -other things which might and ought to be learnt. Schuchardt -rightly remarks that if a bilingual man has two strings to his bow, -both are rather slack, and that the three souls which the ancient -Roman said he possessed, owing to his being able to talk three -different languages, were probably very indifferent souls after all. -A native of Luxemburg, where it is usual for children to talk -both French and German, says that few Luxemburgers talk both -languages perfectly. “Germans often say to us: ‘You speak -German remarkably well for a Frenchman,’ and French people -will say, ‘They are Germans who speak our language excellently.’ -Nevertheless, we never speak either language as fluently as the -natives. The worst of the system is, that instead of learning -things necessary to us we must spend our time and energy in -learning to express the same thought in two or three languages -at the same time.”<a name="FNanchor_26_26" id="FNanchor_26_26"></a><a href="#Footnote_26_26" class="fnanchor">[26]</a></p> - - -<h4>VIII.—§ 4. Playing at Language.</h4> - -<p>The child takes delight in making meaningless sounds long -after it has learnt to talk the language of its elders. At 2.2 Frans -amused himself with long series of such sounds, uttered with the -most confiding look and proper intonation, and it was a joy to -him when I replied with similar sounds. He kept up this game -for years. Once (4.11) after such a performance he asked me: -“Is that English?”—“No.”—“Why not?”—“Because I understand -English, but I do not understand what you say.” An -hour later he came back and asked: “Father, do you know all -languages?”—“No, there are many I don’t know.”—“Do you<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_149" id="Page_149">[149]</a></span> -know German?”—“Yes.” (Frans looked rather crestfallen: -the servants had often said of his invented language that he -was talking German. So he went on) “Do you know -Japanese?”—“No.”—(Delighted) “So remember when I say -something you don’t understand, it’s Japanese.”</p> - -<p>It is the same everywhere. Hawthorne writes: “Pearl mumbled -something into his ear, that sounded, indeed, like human language, -but was only such gibberish as children may be heard amusing -themselves with, by the hour together” (<cite>The Scarlet Letter</cite>, 173). -And R. L. Stevenson: “Children prefer the shadow to the substance. -When they might be speaking intelligibly together, they chatter -senseless gibberish by the hour, and are quite happy because they -are making believe to speak French” (<cite lang="la" xml:lang="la">Virginibus P.</cite>, 236; cf. -Glenconner, p. 40; Stern, pp. 76, 91, 103). Meringer’s boy (2.1) -took the music-book and sang a tune of his own making with -incomprehensible words.</p> - -<p>Children also take delight in varying the sounds of real words, -introducing, for instance, alliterations, as “Sing a song of sixpence, -A socket full of sye,” etc. Frans at 2.3 amused himself by rounding -all his vowels (<i>o</i> for <i>a</i>, <i>y</i> for <i>i</i>), and at 3.1 by making all words of -a verse line he had learnt begin with <i>d</i>, then the same words begin -with <i>t</i>. O’Shea (p. 32) says that “most children find pleasure -in the production of variations upon some of their familiar words. -Their purpose seems to be to test their ability to be original. The -performance of an unusual act affords pleasure in linguistics as in -other matters. H., learning the word <i>dessert</i>, to illustrate, plays -with it for a time and exhibits it in a dozen or more variations—<i>dĭssert</i>, -<i>dishert</i>, <i>dĕsot</i>, <i>des'sert</i>, and so on.”</p> - -<p>Rhythm and rime appeal strongly to the children’s minds. -One English observer says that “a child in its third year will -copy the rhythm of songs and verses it has heard in nonsense -words.” The same thing is noted by Meringer (p. 116) and -Stern (p. 103). Tony E. (2.10) suddenly made up the rime -“My mover, I lov-er,” and Gordon M. (2.6) never tired of repeating -a phrase of his own composition, “Custard over mustard.” A -Danish girl of 3.1 is reported as having a “curious knack of -twisting all words into rimes: bestemor hestemor prestemor, -Gudrun sludrun pludrun, etc.”</p> - - -<h4>VIII.—§ 5. Secret Languages.</h4> - -<p>Children, as we have seen, at first employ play-language for -its own sake, with no <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">arrière-pensée</i>, but as they get older they -may see that such language has the advantage of not being understood -by their elders, and so they may develop a ‘secret language’<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_150" id="Page_150">[150]</a></span> -consciously. Some such languages are confined to one school, -others may be in common use among children of a certain age -all over a country. ‘M-gibberish’ and ‘S-gibberish’ consist -in inserting <i>m</i> and <i>s</i>, as in <i>goming mout tomdaym</i> or <i>gosings outs -tosdays</i> for ‘going out to-day’; ‘Marrowskying’ or ‘Hospital -Greek’ transfers the initial letters of words, as <i>renty of plain</i> for -‘plenty of rain,’ <i>flutterby</i> for ‘butterfly’; ‘Ziph’ or ‘Hypernese’ -(at Winchester) substitutes <i>wa</i> for the first of two initial consonants -and inserts <i>p</i> or <i>g</i>, making ‘breeches’ into <i>wareechepes</i> and ‘penny’ -into <i>pegennepy</i>. From my own boyhood in Denmark I remember -two languages of this sort, in which a sentence like ‘du er et lille -asen’ became <i>dupu erper etpet lilpillepe apasenpen</i> and <i>durbe erbe -erbe lirbelerbe arbeserbe</i> respectively. Closely corresponding languages, -with insertion of <i>p</i> and addition of <i>-erbse</i>, are found in -Germany; in Holland we find ‘de schoone Mei’ made into <i>depé -schoopóonepé Meipéi</i>, besides an <i>-erwi-taal</i> with a variation in -which the ending is <i>-erf</i>. In France such a language is called -<i>javanais</i>; ‘je vais bien’ is made into <i>je-de-que vais-dai-qai bien-den-qen</i>. -In Savoy the cowherds put <i>deg</i> after each syllable and -thus make ‘a-te kogneu se vaçhi’ (‘as-tu connu ce vacher?’ in -the local dialect) into <i>a-degá te-dege ko-dego gnu-degu sé-degé va-dega -chi-degi?</i> Nay, even among the Maoris of New Zealand there -is a similar secret language, in which instead of ‘kei te, haere au -ki reira’ is said <i>te-kei te-i-te te-haere-te-re te-a te-u te-ki te-re-te-i-te-ra</i>. -Human nature is pretty much the same everywhere.<a name="FNanchor_27_27" id="FNanchor_27_27"></a><a href="#Footnote_27_27" class="fnanchor">[27]</a></p> - - -<h4>VIII.—§ 6. Onomatopœia.</h4> - -<p>Do children really create new words? This question has been -much discussed, but even those who are most skeptical in that -respect incline to allow them this power in the case of words which -imitate sounds. Nevertheless, it should be remembered that the -majority of onomatopœic words heard from children are not their -own invention, but are acquired by them in the same way as -other words. Hence it is that such words have different forms -in different languages. Thus to English <i>cockadoodledoo</i> corresponds -French <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">coquerico</i>, German <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">kikeriki</i> and Danish <i lang="da" xml:lang="da">kykeliky</i>, to E. -<i>quack-quack</i>, F. <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">cancan</i>, Dan. <i lang="da" xml:lang="da">raprap</i>, etc. These words are an -imperfect representation of the birds’ natural cry, but from their -likeness to it they are easier for the child to seize than an entirely -arbitrary name such as <i>duck</i>.</p> - -<p>But, side by side with these, children do invent forms of their -own, though the latter generally disappear quickly in favour of the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_151" id="Page_151">[151]</a></span> -traditional forms. Thus Frans (2.3) had coined the word <i>vakvak</i>, -which his mother had heard sometimes without understanding what -he meant, when one day he pointed at some crows while repeating -the same word; but when his mother told him that these birds -were called <i>krager</i>, he took hold of this word with eagerness and -repeated it several times, evidently recognizing it as a better name -than his own. A little boy of 2.1 called soda-water <i>ft</i>, another boy -said <i>ging</i> or <i>gingging</i> for a clock, also for the railway train, while -his brother said <i>dann</i> for a bell or clock; a little girl (1.9) said -<i>pooh</i> (whispered) for ‘match, cigar, pipe,’ and <i>gagag</i> for ‘hen,’ etc.</p> - -<p>When once formed, such words may be transferred to other -things, where the sound plays no longer any rôle. This may be -illustrated through two extensions of the same word <i>bŏom</i> or <i>bom</i>, -used by two children first to express the sound of something falling -on the floor; then Ellen K. (1.9) used it for a ‘blow,’ and finally -for anything disagreeable, e.g. soap in the eyes, while Kaare G. (1.8), -after seeing a plate smashed, used the word for a broken plate and -afterwards for anything broken, a hole in a dress, etc., also when a -button had come off or when anything else was defective in any way.</p> - - -<h4>VIII.—§ 7. Word-inventions.</h4> - -<p>Do children themselves create words—apart from onomatopœic -words? To me there is no doubt that they do. Frans invented -many words at his games that had no connexion, or very little -connexion, with existing words. He was playing with a little -twig when I suddenly heard him exclaim: “This is called <i>lampetine</i>,” -but a little while afterwards he said <i>lanketine</i>, and then -again <i>lampetine</i>, and then he said, varying the play, “Now it is -<i>kluatine</i> and <i>traniklualalilua</i>” (3.6). A month later I write: -“He is never at a loss for a self-invented word; for instance, when -he has made a figure with his bricks which resembles nothing -whatever, he will say, ‘That shall be <i>lindam</i>.’” When he played -at trains in the garden, there were many stations with fanciful -names, and at one time he and two cousins had a word <i>kukukounen</i> -which they repeated constantly and thought great fun, but whose -inner meaning I never succeeded in discovering. An English -friend writes about his daughter: “When she was about two -and a quarter she would often use some nonsense word in the -middle of a perfectly intelligible sentence. When you asked her -its meaning she would explain it by another equally unintelligible, -and so on through a series as long as you cared to make -it.” At 2.10 she pretended she had lost her bricks, and when -you showed her that they were just by her, she insisted that -they were not ‘bricks’ at all, but <i>mums</i>.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_152" id="Page_152">[152]</a></span></p> - -<p>In all accounts of children’s talk you find words which cannot -be referred back to the normal language, but which have cropped -up from some unsounded depth of the child’s soul. I give a few -from notes sent to me by Danish friends: <i>goi</i> ‘comb,’ <i>putput</i> -‘stocking, or any other piece of garment,’ <i>i-a-a</i> ‘chocolate,’ -<i>gön</i> ‘water to drink, milk’ (kept apart from the usual word <i>vand</i> -for water, which she used only for water to wash in), <i>hesh</i> ‘newspaper, -book.’ Some such words have become famous in psychological -literature because they were observed by Darwin and -Taine. Among less famous instances from other books I may -mention <i>tibu</i> ‘bird’ (Strümpel), <i>adi</i> ‘cake’ (Ament), <i>be’lum-be’lum</i> -‘toy with two men turning about,’ <i>wakaka</i> ‘soldier,’ <i>nda</i> ‘jar,’ -<i>pamma</i> ‘pencil,’ <i>bium</i> ‘stocking’ (Meringer).</p> - -<p>An American correspondent writes that his boy was fond of -pushing a stick over the carpet after the manner of a carpet-sweeper -and called the operation <i>jazing</i>. He coined the word -<i>borkens</i> as a name for a particular sort of blocks with which he -was accustomed to play. He was a nervous child and his imagination -created objects of terror that haunted him in the dark, and to -these he gave the name of <i>Boons</i>. This name may, however, be -derived from <i>baboons</i>. Mr. Harold Palmer tells me that his -daughter (whose native language was French) at an early age -used ['fu'wɛ] for ‘soap’ and [dɛ'dɛtʃ] for ‘horse, wooden horse, -merry-go-round.’</p> - -<p>Dr. F. Poulsen, in his book <cite lang="da" xml:lang="da">Rejser og rids</cite> (Copenhagen, 1920), -says about his two-year-old daughter that when she gets hold -of her mother’s fur-collar she will pet it and lavish on it all kinds -of tender self-invented names, such as <i>apu</i> or <i>a-fo-me-me</i>. The latter -word, “which has all the melodious euphony and vague signification -of primitive language,” is applied to anything that is rare and -funny and worth rejoicing at. On a summer day’s excursion there -was one new <i>a-fo-me-me</i> after the other.</p> - -<p>In spite of all this, a point on which all the most distinguished -investigators of children’s language of late years are agreed is -that children never invent words. Wundt goes so far as to say -that “the child’s language is the result of the child’s environment, -the child being essentially a passive instrument in the matter” -(S 1. 196)—one of the most wrong-headed sentences I have ever -read in the works of a great scientist. Meumann says: “Preyer -and after him almost every careful observer among child-psychologists -have strongly held the view that it is impossible to speak -of a child inventing a word.” Similarly Meringer, L 220, Stern, -126, 273, 337 ff., Bloomfield, SL 12.</p> - -<p>These investigators seem to have been led astray by expressions -such as ‘shape out of nothing,’ ‘invent,’ ‘original creation’<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_153" id="Page_153">[153]</a></span> -(Urschöpfung), and to have taken this doctrinaire attitude in -partial defiance of the facts they have themselves advanced. -Expressions like those adduced occur over and over again in their -discussions, and Meumann says openly: “Invention demands a -methodical proceeding with intention, a conception of an end to -be realized.” Of course, if that is necessary it is clear that we -can speak of invention of words in the case of a chemist seeking -a word for a new substance, and not in the case of a tiny child. -But are there not many inventions in the technical world, which -we do not hesitate to call inventions, which have come about -more or less by chance? Wasn’t it so probably with gunpowder? -According to the story it certainly was so with blotting-paper: -the foreman who had forgotten to add size to a portion of writing-paper -was dismissed, but the manufacturer who saw that the paper -thus spoilt could be turned to account instead of the sand hitherto -used made a fortune. So according to Meumann blotting-paper -has never been ‘invented.’ If in order to acknowledge a child’s -creation of a word we are to postulate that it has been produced -out of nothing, what about bicycles, fountain-pens, typewriters—each -of which was something existing before, carried just a little -further? Are they on that account not inventions? One would -think not, when one reads these writers on children’s language, -for as soon as the least approximation to a word in the normal -language is discovered, the child is denied both ‘invention’ and -‘the speech-forming faculty’! Thus Stern (p. 338) says that -his daughter in her second year used some words which might -be taken as proof of the power to create words, but for the fact -that it was here possible to show how these ‘new’ words had grown -out of normal words. <i>Eischei</i>, for instance, was used as a verb -meaning ‘go, walk,’ but it originated in the words <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">eins, zwei</i> (one, -two) which were said when the child was taught to walk. Other -examples are given comparable to those mentioned above (106, 115) -as mutilations of the first period. Now, even if all those words -given by myself and others as original inventions of children -could be proved to be similar perversions of ‘real’ words (which -is not likely), I should not hesitate to speak of a word-creating -faculty, for <i>eischei</i>, ‘to walk,’ is both in form and still more in -meaning far enough from <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">eins, zwei</i> to be reckoned a totally -new word.</p> - -<p>We can divide words ‘invented’ by children into three classes:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>A. The child gives both sound and meaning.</p> - -<p>B. The grown-up people give the sound, and the child the -meaning.</p> - -<p>C. The child gives the sound, grown-up people the meaning.</p></div> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_154" id="Page_154">[154]</a></span></p> - -<p>But the three classes cannot always be kept apart, especially -when the child imitates the grown-up person’s sound so badly or -seizes the meaning so imperfectly that very little is left of what -the grown-up person gives. As a rule, the self-created words -will be very short-lived; still, there are exceptions.</p> - -<p>O’Shea’s account of one of these words is very instructive. -“She had also a few words of her own coining which were attached -spontaneously to objects, and these her elders took up, and they -became fixed in her vocabulary for a considerable period. A word -resembling <i>Ndobbin</i> was employed for every sort of thing which -she used for food. The word came originally from an accidental -combination of sounds made while she was eating. By the aid -of the people about her in responding to this term and repeating -it, she ‘selected’ it and for a time used it purposefully. She -employed it at the outset for a specific article of food; then her -elders extended it to other articles, and this aided her in making -the extension herself. Once started in this process, she extended -the term to many objects associated with her food, even objects -as remote from her original experience as dining-room, high-chair, -kitchen, and even apple and plum trees” (O’Shea, 27).</p> - -<p>To Class A I assign most of the words already given as the -child’s creations, whether the child be great or small.</p> - -<p>Class B is that which is most sparsely represented. A child -in Finland often heard the well-known line about King Karl -(Charles XII), “Han stod i rök och damm” (“He stood in smoke -and dust”), and taking <i>rö</i> to be the adjective meaning ‘red,’ imagined -the remaining syllables, which he heard as <i>kordamm</i>, to be the -name of some piece of garment. This amused his parents so much -that <i>kordamm</i> became the name of a dressing-gown in that family.</p> - -<p>To Class C, where the child contributes only the sound and -the older people give a meaning to what on the child’s side was -meaningless—a process that reminds one of the invention of -blotting-paper—belong some of the best-known words, which -require a separate section.</p> - - -<h4><a id="VIII_8"></a>VIII.—§ 8. ‘Mamma’ and ‘Papa.’</h4> - -<p>In the nurseries of all countries a little comedy has in all ages -been played—the baby lies and babbles his ‘mamama’ or -‘amama’ or ‘papapa’ or ‘apapa’ or ‘bababa’ or ‘ababab’ -without associating the slightest meaning with his mouth-games, -and his grown-up friends, in their joy over the precocious child, -assign to these syllables a rational sense, accustomed as they are -themselves to the fact of an uttered sound having a content, a -thought, an idea, corresponding to it. So we get a whole class<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_155" id="Page_155">[155]</a></span> -of words, distinguished by a simplicity of sound-formation—never -two consonants together, generally the same consonant repeated -with an <i>a</i> between, frequently also with an <i>a</i> at the end—words -found in many languages, often in different forms, but with -essentially the same meaning.</p> - -<p>First we have words for ‘mother.’ It is very natural that -the mother who is greeted by her happy child with the sound -‘mama’ should take it as though the child were <em>calling</em> her ‘mama,’ -and since she frequently comes to the cradle when she hears the -sound, the child himself does learn to use these syllables when -he wants to call her. In this way they become a recognized word -for the idea ‘mother’—now with the stress on the first syllable, -now on the second. In French we get a nasal vowel either in -the last syllable only or in both syllables. At times we have only -one syllable, <i>ma</i>. When once these syllables have become a regular -word they follow the speech laws which govern other words; thus -among other forms we get the German <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">muhme</i>, the meaning of which -(‘aunt’) is explained as in the words mentioned, p. <a href="#Page_118">118</a>. In very early -times <i>ma</i> in our group of languages was supplied with a termination, -so that we get the form underlying Greek <i>mētēr</i>, Lat. <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">mater</i> (whence -Fr. <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">mère</i>, etc.), our own <i>mother</i>, G. <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">mutter</i>, etc. These words -became the recognized grown-up words, while <i>mama</i> itself was -only used in the intimacy of the family. It depends on fashion, -however, how ‘high up’ <i>mama</i> can be used: in some countries -and in some periods children are allowed to use it longer than -in others.</p> - -<p>The forms <i>mama</i> and <i>ma</i> are not the only ones for ‘mother.’ -The child’s <i>am</i> has also been seized and maintained by the grown-ups. -The Albanian word for ‘mother’ is <i lang="sq" xml:lang="sq">ama</i>, the Old Norse -word for ‘grandmother’ is <i lang="non" xml:lang="non">amma</i>. The Latin <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">am-ita</i>, formed from -<i>am</i> with a termination added, came to mean ‘aunt’ and became -in OFr. <i lang="fro" xml:lang="fro">ante</i>, whence E. <i>aunt</i> and Modern Fr. <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">tante</i>. In Semitic -languages the words for ‘mother’ also have a vowel before <i>m</i>: -Assyrian <i>ummu</i>, Hebrew <i>’êm</i>, etc.</p> - -<p><i>Baba</i>, too, is found in the sense ‘mother,’ especially in Slavonic -languages, though it has here developed various derivative meanings, -‘old woman,’ ‘grandmother,’ or ‘midwife.’ In Tonga we -have <i>bama</i> ‘mother.’</p> - -<p>Forms with <i>n</i> are also found for ‘mother’; so Sanskrit <i>naná</i>, -Albanian <i lang="sq" xml:lang="sq">nane</i>. Here we have also Gr. <i>nannē</i> ‘aunt’ and Lat. -<i lang="la" xml:lang="la">nonna</i>; the latter ceased in the early Middle Ages to mean ‘grandmother’ -and became a respectful way of addressing women of a -certain age, whence we know it as <i>nun</i>, the feminine counterpart -of ‘monk.’ From less known languages I may mention Greenlandic -<i>a'na·na</i> ‘mother,’ <i>'a·na</i> ‘grandmother.’</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_156" id="Page_156">[156]</a></span></p> - -<p>Now we come to words meaning ‘father,’ and quite naturally, -where the sound-groups containing <i>m</i> have already been interpreted -in the sense ‘mother,’ a word for ‘father’ will be sought -in the syllables with <i>p</i>. It is no doubt frequently noticed in the -nursery that the baby says <i>mama</i> where one expected <i>papa</i>, and -vice versa; but at last he learns to deal out the syllables ‘rightly,’ -as we say. The history of the forms <i>papa</i>, <i>pappa</i> and <i>pa</i> is analogous -to the history of the <i>m</i> syllables already traced. We have -the same extension of the sound by <i>tr</i> in the word <i>pater</i>, which -according to recognized laws of sound-change is found in the -French <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">père</i>, the English <i>father</i>, the Danish <i lang="da" xml:lang="da">fader</i>, the German -<i lang="de" xml:lang="de">vater</i>, etc. Philologists no longer, fortunately, derive these words -from a root <i>pa</i> ‘to protect,’ and see therein a proof of the ‘highly -moral spirit’ of our aboriginal ancestors, as Fick and others did. -<i>Papa</i>, as we know, also became an honourable title for a reverend -ecclesiastic, and hence comes the name which we have in the -form <i>Pope</i>.</p> - -<p>Side by side with the p forms we have forms in <i>b</i>—Italian -<i lang="it" xml:lang="it">babbo</i>, Bulgarian <i>babá</i>, Serbian <i>bába</i>, Turkish <i lang="tr" xml:lang="tr">baba</i>. Beginning -with the vowel we have the Semitic forms <i>ab</i>, <i>abu</i> and finally <i>abba</i>, -which is well known, since through Greek <i>abbas</i> it has become the -name for a spiritual father in all European languages, our form -being <i>Abbot</i>.</p> - -<p>Again, we have some names for ‘father’ with dental sounds: -Sanskrit <i>tatá</i>, Russian <i>tata</i>, <i>tyatya</i>, Welsh <i lang="cy" xml:lang="cy">tat</i>, etc. The English -<i>dad</i>, now so universal, is sometimes considered to have been borrowed -from this Welsh word, which in certain connexions has an -initial <i>d</i>, but no doubt it had an independent origin. In Slavonic -languages <i>déd</i> is extensively used for ‘grandfather’ or ‘old man.’ -Thus also <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">deite</i>, <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">teite</i> in German dialects. <i>Tata</i> ‘father’ is found -in Congo and other African languages, also (<i>tatta</i>) in Negro-English -(Surinam). And just as words for ‘mother’ change their -meaning from ‘mother’ to ‘aunt,’ so these forms in some languages -come to mean ‘uncle’: Gr. <i>theios</i> (whence Italian <i lang="it" xml:lang="it">zio</i>), -Lithuanian <i lang="lt" xml:lang="lt">dede</i>, Russian <i>dyadya</i>.</p> - -<p>With an initial vowel we get the form <i>atta</i>, in Greek used in -addressing old people, in Gothic the ordinary word for ‘father,’ -which with a termination added gives the proper name <i>Attila</i>, -originally ‘little father’; with another ending we have Russian -<i>otec</i>. Outside our own family of languages we find, for instance, -Magyar <i lang="hu" xml:lang="hu">atya</i>, Turkish <i lang="tr" xml:lang="tr">ata</i>, Basque <i lang="eu" xml:lang="eu">aita</i>, Greenlandic <i>a'ta·ta</i> ‘father,’ -while in the last-mentioned language <i>a·ta</i> means ‘grandfather.’<a name="FNanchor_28_28" id="FNanchor_28_28"></a><a href="#Footnote_28_28" class="fnanchor">[28]</a></p> -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_157" id="Page_157">[157]</a></span></p> -<p>The nurse, too, comes in for her share in these names, as she -too is greeted by the child’s babbling and is tempted to take it -as the child’s name for her; thus we get the German and Scandinavian -<i>amme</i>, Polish <i lang="pl" xml:lang="pl">niania</i>, Russian <i>nyanya</i>, cf. our <i>Nanny</i>. -These words cannot be kept distinct from names for ‘aunt,’ cf. -<i>amita</i> above, and in Sanskrit we find <i>mama</i> for ‘uncle.’</p> - -<p>It is perhaps more doubtful if we can find a name for the -child itself which has arisen in the same way; the nearest example -is the Engl. <i>babe</i>, <i>baby</i>, German <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">bube</i> (with <i>u</i> as in <i>muhme</i> above); -but <i>babe</i> has also been explained as a word derived normally from -OFr. <i lang="fro" xml:lang="fro">baube</i>, from Lat. <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">balbus</i> ‘stammering.’ When the name -<i>Bab</i> or <i>Babs</i> (<i lang="da" xml:lang="da">Babbe</i> in a Danish family) becomes the pet-name -for a little girl, this has no doubt come from an interpretation -put on her own meaningless sounds. Ital. <i lang="it" xml:lang="it">bambo</i> (<i lang="it" xml:lang="it">bambino</i>) certainly -belongs here. We may here mention also some terms for -‘doll,’ Lat. <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">pupa</i> or <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">puppa</i>, G. <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">puppe</i>; with a derivative ending -we have Fr. <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">poupée</i>, E. <i>puppet</i> (Chaucer, A 3254, <i>popelote</i>). These -words have a rich semantic development, cf. <i>pupa</i> (Dan. <i lang="da" xml:lang="da">puppe</i>, -etc.) ‘chrysalis,’ and the diminutive Lat. <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">pupillus</i>, <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">pupilla</i>, which -was used for ‘a little child, minor,’ whence E. <i>pupil</i> ‘disciple,’ -but also for the little child seen in the eye, whence E. (and other -languages) <i>pupil</i>, ‘central opening of the eye.’</p> - -<p>A child has another main interest—that is, in its food, the -breast, the bottle, etc. In many countries it has been observed -that very early a child uses a long <i>m</i> (without a vowel) as a sign -that it wants something, but we can hardly be right in supposing -that the sound is originally meant by children in this sense. They -do not use it consciously till they see that grown-up people on -hearing the sound come up and find out what the child wants. -And it is the same with the developed forms which are uttered -by the child in its joy at getting something to eat, and which are -therefore interpreted as the child’s expression for food: <i>am</i>, <i>mam</i>, -<i>mammam</i>, or the same words with a final <i>a</i>—that is, really the same -groups of sounds which came to stand for ‘mother.’ The determination -of a particular form to a particular meaning is always -due to the adults, who, however, can subsequently <em>teach</em> it to the -child. Under this heading comes the sound <i>ham</i>, which Taine -observed to be one child’s expression for hunger or thirst (<i>h</i> mute?), -and similarly the word <i>mum</i>, meaning ‘something to eat,’ invented,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_158" id="Page_158">[158]</a></span> -as we are told, by Darwin’s son and often uttered with a rising -intonation, as in a question, ‘Will you give me something to eat?’ -Lindner’s child (1.5) is said to have used <i>papp</i> for everything -eatable and <i>mem</i> or <i>möm</i> for anything drinkable. In normal -language we have forms like Sanskrit <i>māmsa</i> (Gothic <i>mimz</i>) and -<i>mās</i> ‘flesh,’ our own <i>meat</i> (which formerly, like Dan. <i lang="da" xml:lang="da">mad</i>, meant -any kind of food), German <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">mus</i> ‘jam’ (whence also <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">gemüse</i>), and -finally Lat. <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">mandere</i> and <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">manducare</i>, ‘to chew’ (whence Fr. <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">manger</i>)—all -developments of this childish <i>ma(m)</i>.</p> - -<p>As the child’s first nourishment is its mother’s breast, its joyous -<i>mamama</i> can also be taken to mean the breast. So we have the -Latin <i>mamma</i> (with a diminutive ending <i>mammilla</i>, whence -Fr. <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">mamelle</i>), and with the other labial sound Engl. <i>pap</i>, Norwegian -and Swed. dial. <i>pappe</i>, Lat. <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">papilla</i>; with a different vowel, -It. <i lang="it" xml:lang="it">poppa</i>, Fr. <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">poupe</i>, ‘teat of an animal, formerly also of a woman’; -with <i>b</i>, G. <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">bübbi</i>, obsolete E. <i>bubby</i>; with a dental, E. <i>teat</i> (G. <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">zitze</i>), -Ital. <i lang="it" xml:lang="it">tetta</i>, Dan. <i lang="da" xml:lang="da">titte</i>, Swed. dial. <i lang="sv" xml:lang="sv">tatte</i>. Further we have words -like E. <i>pap</i> ‘soft food,’ Latin <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">papare</i> ‘to eat,’ orig. ‘to suck,’ -and some G. forms for the same, <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">pappen</i>, <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">pampen</i>, <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">pampfen</i>. -Perhaps the beginning of the word <i>milk</i> goes back to the baby’s -<i>ma</i> applied to the mother’s breast or milk; the latter half may -then be connected with Lat. <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">lac</i>. In Greenlandic we have <i>ama·ma</i> -‘suckle.’</p> - -<p>Inseparable from these words is the sound, a long <i>m</i> or <i>am</i>, -which expresses the child’s delight over something that tastes -good; it has by-forms in the Scotch <i>nyam</i> or <i>nyamnyam</i>, the English -seaman’s term <i>yam</i> ‘to eat,’ and with two dentals the French -<i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">nanan</i> ‘sweetmeats.’ Some linguists will have it that the Latin -<i lang="la" xml:lang="la">amo</i> ‘I love’ is derived from this <i>am</i>, which expresses pleasurable -satisfaction. When a father tells me that his son (1.10) uses -the wonderful words <i>nananæi</i> for ‘chocolate’ and <i>jajajaja</i> for -picture-book, we have no doubt here also a case of a grown -person’s interpretation of the originally meaningless sounds of -a child.</p> - -<p>Another meaning that grown-up people may attach to syllables -uttered by the child is that of ‘good-bye,’ as in English <i>tata</i>, which -has now been incorporated in the ordinary language.<a name="FNanchor_29_29" id="FNanchor_29_29"></a><a href="#Footnote_29_29" class="fnanchor">[29]</a> Stern -probably is right when he thinks that the French <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">adieu</i> would -not have been accepted so commonly in Germany and other -countries if it had not accommodated itself so easily, especially -in the form commonly used in German, <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">ade</i>, to the child’s natural -word.</p> -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_159" id="Page_159">[159]</a></span></p> -<p>There are some words for ‘bed, sleep’ which clearly belong -to this class: Tuscan <i lang="it" xml:lang="it">nanna</i> ‘cradle,’ Sp. <i lang="es" xml:lang="es">hacer la nana</i> ‘go to -sleep,’ E. <i>bye-bye</i> (possibly associated with <i>good-bye</i>, instead of -which is also said <i>byebye</i>); Stern mentions <i>baba</i> (Berlin), <i>beibei</i> -(Russian), <i lang="ms" xml:lang="ms">bobo</i> (Malay), but <i>bischbisch</i>, which he also gives here, -is evidently (like the Danish <i lang="da" xml:lang="da">visse</i>) imitative of the sound used for -hushing.</p> - -<p>Words of this class stand in a way outside the common words -of a language, owing to their origin and their being continually -new-created. One cannot therefore deduce laws of sound-change -from them in their original shape; and it is equally wrong to use -them as evidence for an original kinship between different families -of language and to count them as loan-words, as is frequently -done (for example, when the Slavonic <i>baba</i> is said to be borrowed -from Turkish). The English <i>papa</i> and <i>mam(m)a</i>, and the same -words in German and Danish, Italian, etc., are almost always -regarded as borrowed from French; but Cauer rightly points out -that Nausikaa (<cite>Odyssey</cite> 6. 57) addresses her father as <i>pappa fil</i>, -and Homer cannot be suspected of borrowing from French. Still, -it is true that fashion may play a part in deciding how long children -may be permitted to say <i>papa</i> and <i>mamma</i>, and a French fashion -may in this respect have spread to other European countries, -especially in the seventeenth century. We may not find these -words in early use in the <em>literatures</em> of the different countries, but -this is no proof that the words were not used in the nursery. As -soon as a word of this class has somewhere got a special application, -this can very well pass as a loan-word from land to land—as we -saw in the case of the words <i>abbot</i> and <i>pope</i>. And it may be -granted with respect to the primary use of the words that there -are certain national or quasi-national customs which determine -what grown people expect to hear from babies, so that one nation -expects and recognizes <i>papa</i>, another <i>dad</i>, a third <i>atta</i>, for the -meaning ‘father.’</p> - -<p>When the child hands something to somebody or reaches out -for something he will generally say something, and if, as often -happens, this is <i>ta</i> or <i>da</i>, it will be taken by its parents and others -as a real word, different according to the language they speak; -in England as <i>there</i> or <i>thanks</i>, in Denmark as <i lang="da" xml:lang="da">tak</i> ‘thanks’<a name="FNanchor_30_30" id="FNanchor_30_30"></a><a href="#Footnote_30_30" class="fnanchor">[30]</a> or -<i lang="da" xml:lang="da">tag</i> ‘take,’ in Germany as <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">da</i> ‘there,’ in France as <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">tiens</i> ‘hold,’ -in Russia as <i>day</i> ‘give,’ in Italy as <i lang="it" xml:lang="it">to</i>, (= <i lang="it" xml:lang="it">togli</i>) ‘take.’ The -form <i>tê</i> in Homer is interpreted by some as an imperative of -<i>teinō</i> ‘stretch.’ These instances, however, are slightly different<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_160" id="Page_160">[160]</a></span> -in character from those discussed in the main part of this -chapter.<a name="FNanchor_31_31" id="FNanchor_31_31"></a><a href="#Footnote_31_31" class="fnanchor">[31]</a></p> - - - -<div class="chapter"> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_161" id="Page_161">[161]</a></span></p> - - - -<h3 class="nobreak"><a name="CHAPTER_IX" id="CHAPTER_IX">CHAPTER IX</a><br /> - -<span class="larger">THE INFLUENCE OF THE CHILD ON -LINGUISTIC DEVELOPMENT</span></h3> -</div> - -<div class="blockquot chaptersummary"> - -<p>§ 1. Conflicting Views. § 2. Meringer. Analogy. § 3. Herzog’s Theory of -Sound Changes. § 4. Gradual Shiftings. § 5. Leaps. § 6. Assimilations, -etc. § 7. Stump-words.</p></div> - - -<h4>IX.—§ 1. Conflicting Views.</h4> - -<p>We all know that in historical times languages have been constantly -changing, and we have much indirect evidence that in -prehistoric times they did the same thing. But when it is -asked if these changes, unavoidable as they seem to be, are to be -ascribed primarily to children and their defective imitation of -the speech of their elders, or if children’s language in general -plays no part at all in the history of language, we find linguists -expressing quite contrary views, without the question having -ever been really thoroughly investigated.</p> - -<p>Some hold that the child acquires its language with such perfection -that it cannot be held responsible for the changes recorded -in the history of languages: others, on the contrary, hold that -the most important source of these changes is to be found in the -transmission of the language to new generations. How undecided -the attitude even of the foremost linguists may be towards the -question is perhaps best seen in the views expressed at different -times by Sweet. In 1882 he reproaches Paul with paying attention -only to the shiftings going on in the pronunciation of the same -individual, and not acknowledging “the much more potent cause -of change which exists in the fact that one generation can learn -the sounds of the preceding one by imitation only. It is an open -question whether the modifications made by the individual in a -sound he has once learnt, independently of imitation of those -around him, are not too infinitesimal to have any appreciable -effect” (CP 153). In the same spirit he asserted in 1899 that -the process of learning our own language in childhood is a very -slow one, “and the results are always imperfect.... If languages -were learnt perfectly by the children of each generation, then -languages would not change: English children would still speak -a language as old at least as ‘Anglo-Saxon,’ and there would be<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_162" id="Page_162">[162]</a></span> -no such languages as French and Italian. The changes in languages -are simply slight mistakes, which in the course of generations -completely alter the character of the language” (PS 75). But -only one year later, in 1900, he maintains that the child’s imitation -“is in most cases practically perfect”—“the main cause of -sound-change must therefore be sought elsewhere. The real -cause of sound-change seems to be organic shifting—failure to hit -the mark, the result either of carelessness or sloth ... a slight -deviation from the pronunciation learnt in infancy may easily -pass unheeded, especially by those who make the same change -in their own pronunciation” (H 19 f.). By the term “organic -shifting” Sweet evidently, as seen from his preface, meant shifting -in the pronunciation of the adult, thus a modification of the sound -learnt ‘perfectly’ in childhood. Paul, who in the first edition -(1880) of his <cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Prinzipien der Sprachgeschichte</cite> did not mention -the influence of children, in all the following editions (2nd, 1886, -p. 58; 3rd, 1898, p. 58; 4th, 1909, p. 63) expressly says that -“<span lang="de" xml:lang="de">die hauptveranlassung zum lautwandel in der übertragung der -laute auf neue individuen liegt</span>,” while the shiftings within the -same generation are very slight. Paul thus modified his view in -the opposite direction of Sweet<a name="FNanchor_32_32" id="FNanchor_32_32"></a><a href="#Footnote_32_32" class="fnanchor">[32]</a>—and did so under the influence -of Sweet’s criticism of his own first view!</p> - -<p>When one finds scholars expressing themselves in this manner -and giving hardly any reasons for their views, one is tempted to -believe that the question is perhaps insoluble, that it is a mere -toss-up, or that in the sentence “children’s imitation is nearly -perfect” the stress may be laid, according to taste, now on the word -<i>nearly</i>, and now on the word <i>perfect</i>. I am, however, convinced that -we can get a little farther, though only by breaking up the question, -instead of treating it as one vague and indeterminate whole.</p> - - -<h4>IX.—§ 2. Meringer. Analogy.</h4> - -<p>Among recent writers Meringer has gone furthest into the -question, adhering in the main to the general view that, just as -in other fields, social, economic, etc., it is grown-up men who -take the lead in new developments, so it is grown-up men, and -not women or children, who carry things forward in the field of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_163" id="Page_163">[163]</a></span> -language. In one place he justifies his standpoint by a reference -to a special case, and I will take this as the starting-point of my -own consideration of the question. He says: “It can be shown -by various examples that they [changes in language] are decidedly -not due to children. In Ionic, Attic and Lesbian Greek the -words for ‘hundreds’ are formed in <i>-kosioi</i> (<i>diakósioi</i>, etc.), while -elsewhere (in Doric and Bœotian) they appear as <i>-kátioi</i>. How -does the <i>o</i> arise in <i>-kósioi</i>? It is generally said that it comes -from <i>o</i> in the ‘tens’ in the termination <i>-konta</i>. Can it be children -who have formed the words for hundreds on the model of the -words for tens, children under six years old, who are just learning -to talk? Such children generally have other things to attend -to than to practise themselves in numerals above a hundred.” -Similar formations are adduced from Latin, and it is stated that -the personal pronouns are especially subject to change, but children -do not use the personal pronouns till an age when they are already -in firm possession of the language. Meringer then draws the -conclusion that the share which children take in bringing about -linguistic change is a very small one.</p> - -<p>Now, I should like first to remark that even if it is possible to -point to certain changes in language which cannot be ascribed -to little children, this proves nothing with regard to the very -numerous changes which lie outside these limits. And next, -that all the cases here mentioned are examples of formation by -analogy. But from the very nature of the case, the conditions -requisite for the occurrence of such formations are exactly the -same in the case of adults and in that of the children. For what -are the conditions? Some one feels an impulse to express something, -and at the moment has not got the traditional form at -command, and so is driven to evolve a form of his own from the -rest of the linguistic material. It makes no difference whether -he has never heard a form used by other people which expresses -what he wants, or whether he has heard the traditional form, -but has not got it ready at hand at the moment. The method of -procedure is exactly the same whether it takes place in a three-year-old -or in an eighty-three-year-old brain: it is therefore -senseless to put the question whether formations by analogy are -or are not due to children. A formation by analogy is by -definition a non-traditional form. It is therefore idle to ask if -it is due to the fact that the language is transmitted from generation -to generation and to the child’s imperfect repetition of what has -been transmitted to it, and Meringer’s argument thus breaks -down in every respect.</p> - -<p>It must not, of course, be overlooked that children naturally -come to invent more formations by analogy than grown-up people,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_164" id="Page_164">[164]</a></span> -because the latter in many cases have heard the older forms so -often that they find a place in their speech without any effort -being required to recall them. But that does not touch the -problem under discussion; besides, formations by analogy are -unavoidable and indispensable, in the talk of all, even of the -most ‘grown-up’: one cannot, indeed, move in language without -having recourse to forms and constructions that are not directly -and fully transmitted to us: speech is not alone reproduction, -but just as much new-production, because no situation and no -impulse to communication is in every detail exactly the same -as what has occurred on earlier occasions.</p> - - -<h4>IX.—§ 3. Herzog’s Theory of Sound Changes.</h4> - -<p>If, leaving the field of analogical changes, we begin to inquire -whether the purely phonetic changes can or must be ascribed to -the fact that a new generation has to learn the mother-tongue -by imitation, we shall first have to examine an interesting theory -in which the question is answered in the affirmative, at least with -regard to those phonetic changes which are gradual and not -brought about all at once; thus, when in one particular language -one vowel, say [e·], is pronounced more and more closely till -finally it becomes [i·], as has happened in E. <i>see</i>, formerly pronounced -[se·] with the same vowel as in G. <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">see</i>, now [si·]. E. -Herzog maintains that such changes happen through transference -to new generations, even granted that the children imitate the -sound of the grown-up people perfectly. For, it is said, children -with their little mouths cannot produce acoustically the same -sound as adults, except by a different position of the speech-organs; -this position they keep for the rest of their lives, so that -when they are grown-up and their mouth is of full size they produce -a rather different sound from that previously heard—which altered -sound is again imitated by the next generation with yet another -position of the organs, and so on. This continuous play of -generation <i>v.</i> generation may be illustrated in this way:</p> - - -<div class="center"> -<table class="left" border="0" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" summary=""> -<tr><td colspan="2"></td><td><span class="smcap">Articulation</span></td><td><i>corresponding to</i></td><td><span class="smcap">Sound</span>.</td></tr> -<tr><td rowspan="2">1st generation</td><td>young</td><td>A1</td><td class="center"> ... </td><td>S1</td></tr> -<tr><td>old</td><td>A1</td><td class="center"> ... </td><td>S2</td></tr> -<tr><td rowspan="2">2nd generation</td><td>young</td><td>A2</td><td class="center"> ... </td><td>S2</td></tr> -<tr><td>old</td><td>A2</td><td class="center"> ... </td><td>S3</td></tr> -<tr><td rowspan="2">3rd generation</td><td>young</td><td>A3</td><td class="center"> ... </td><td>S3</td></tr> -<tr><td>old</td><td>A3</td><td class="center"> ... </td><td>S4, etc.<a name="FNanchor_33_33" id="FNanchor_33_33"></a><a href="#Footnote_33_33" class="fnanchor">[33]</a></td></tr> -</table></div> -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_165" id="Page_165">[165]</a></span></p> -<p>It is, however, easy to prove that this theory cannot be correct. -(1) It is quite certain that the increase in size of the mouth is -far less important than is generally supposed (see my <cite lang="da" xml:lang="da">Fonetik</cite>, -p. 379 ff., PhG, p. 80 ff.; cf. above, V § 1). (2) It cannot be proved -that people, after once learning one definite way of producing a -sound, go on producing it in exactly the same way, even if the -acoustic result is a different one. It is much more probable that -each individual is constantly adapting himself to the sounds heard -from those around him, even if this adaptation is neither as -quick nor perhaps as perfect as that of children, who can very -rapidly accommodate their speech to the dialect of new surroundings: -if very far-reaching changes are rare in the case of grown-up -people, this proves nothing against such small adaptations as -are here presupposed. In favour of the continual regulation of -the sound through the ear may be adduced the fact that adults -who become perfectly deaf and thus lose the control of sounds -through hearing may come to speak in such a way that their -words can hardly be understood by others. (3) The theory in -question also views the relations between successive generations -in a way that is far removed from the realities of life: from the -wording one might easily imagine that there were living together -at any given time only individuals of ages separated by, say, -thirty years’ distance, while the truth of the matter is that a -child is normally surrounded by people of all ages and learns its -language more or less from all of them, from Grannie down to -little Dick from over the way, and that (as has already been -remarked) its chief teachers are its own brothers and sisters and -other playmates of about the same age as itself. If the theory -were correct, there would at any rate be a marked difference -in vowel-sounds between anyone and his grandfather, or, still -more, great-grandfather: but nothing of the kind has ever been -described. (4) The chief argument, however, against the theory -is this, that were it true, then all shiftings of sounds at all times -and in all languages would proceed in exactly the same direction. -But this is emphatically contradicted by the history of language. -The long <i>a</i> in English in one period was rounded and raised into -<i>o</i>, as in OE. <i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">stan</i>, <i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">na</i>, <i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">ham</i>, which have become <i>stone</i>, <i>no</i>, <i>home</i>; -but when a few centuries later new long <i>a</i>’s had entered the -language, they followed the opposite direction towards <i>e</i>, now -[ei], as in <i>name</i>, <i>male</i>, <i>take</i>. Similarly in Danish, where an old -stratum of long <i>a</i>’s have become <i>å</i>, as in <i lang="da" xml:lang="da">ål</i>, <i lang="da" xml:lang="da">gås</i>, while a later stratum -tends rather towards [æ], as in the present pronunciation of <i lang="da" xml:lang="da">gade</i>, -<i lang="da" xml:lang="da">hale</i>, etc. At the same time the long <i>a</i> in Swedish tends towards -the rounded pronunciation (cf. Fr. <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">âme</i>, <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">pas</i>): in one sister language -we thus witness a repetition of the old shifting, in the other a<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_166" id="Page_166">[166]</a></span> -tendency in the opposite direction. And it is the same with all -those languages which we can pursue far enough back: they all -present the same picture of varying vowel shiftings in different -directions, which is totally incompatible with Herzog’s view.</p> - - -<h4><a id="IX_4"></a>IX.—§ 4. Gradual Shiftings.</h4> - -<p>We shall do well to put aside such artificial theories and look -soberly at the facts. When some sounds in one century go one -way, and in another, another, while at times they remain long -unchanged, it all rests on this, that for human habits of this sort -there is no standard measure. Set a man to saw a hundred logs, -measuring No. 2 by No. 1, No. 3 by No. 2, and so on, and you will -see considerable deviations from the original measure—perhaps -all going in the same direction, so that No. 100 is very much -longer than No. 1 as the result of the sum of a great many small -deviations—perhaps all going in the opposite direction; but it -is also possible that in a certain series he was inclined to make -the logs too long, and in the next series too short, the two sets -of deviations about balancing one another.</p> - -<p>It is much the same with the formation of speech sounds: -at one moment, for some reason or other, in a particular mood, -in order to lend authority or distinction to our words, we may -happen to lower the jaw a little more, or to thrust the tongue a -little more forward than usual, or inversely, under the influence -of fatigue or laziness, or to sneer at someone else, or because we -have a cigar or potato in our mouth, the movements of the jaw -or of the tongue may fall short of what they usually are. We -have all the while a sort of conception of an average pronunciation, -of a normal degree of opening or of protrusion, which we aim -at, but it is nothing very fixed, and the only measure at our disposal -is that we are or are not understood. What is understood -is all right: what does not meet this requirement must be repeated -with greater correctness as an answer to ‘I beg your pardon?’</p> - -<p>Everyone thinks that he talks to-day just as he did yesterday, -and, of course, he does so in nearly every point. But no one knows -if he pronounces his mother-tongue in every respect in the same -manner as he did twenty years ago. May we not suppose that what -happens with faces happens here also? One lives with a friend day -in and day out, and he appears to be just what he was years ago, but -someone who returns home after a long absence is at once struck -by the changes which have gradually accumulated in the interval.</p> - -<p>Changes in the sounds of a language are not, indeed, so rapid -as those in the appearance of an individual, for the simple reason -that it is not enough for one man to alter his pronunciation,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_167" id="Page_167">[167]</a></span> -many must co-operate: the social nature and social aim of language -has the natural consequence that all must combine in the -same movement, or else one neutralizes the changes introduced -by the other; each individual also is continually under the influence -of his fellows, and involuntarily fashions his pronunciation -according to the impression he is constantly receiving of other -people’s sounds. But as regards those little gradual shiftings of -sounds which take place in spite of all this control and its conservative -influence, changes in which the sound and the articulation -alter simultaneously, I cannot see that the transmission of the -language to a new generation need exert any essential influence: -we may imagine them being brought about equally well in a society -which for hundreds of years consisted of the same adults who -never died and had no issue.</p> - - -<h4>IX.—§ 5. Leaps.</h4> - -<p>While in the shiftings mentioned in the last paragraphs -articulation and acoustic impression went side by side, it is -different with some shiftings in which the old sound and the new -resemble one another to the ear, but differ in the position of the -organs and the articulations. For instance, when [þ] as in E. -<i>thick</i> becomes [f] and [ð] as in E. <i>mother</i> becomes [v], one can -hardly conceive the change taking place in the pronunciation of -people who have learnt the right sound as children. It is very -natural, on the other hand, that children should imitate the -harder sound by giving the easier, which is very like it, and which -they have to use in many other words: forms like <i>fru</i> for <i>through</i>, -<i>wiv</i>, <i>muvver</i> for <i>with</i>, <i>mother</i>, are frequent in the mouths of children -long before they begin to make their appearance in the speech -of adults, where they are now beginning to be very frequent in -the Cockney dialect. (Cf. MEG i. 13. 9.) The same transition is -met with in Old Fr., where we have <i lang="fro" xml:lang="fro">muef</i> from <i>modu</i>, <i lang="fro" xml:lang="fro">nif</i> from -<i>nidu</i>, <i lang="fro" xml:lang="fro">fief</i> from <i>feodu</i>, <i lang="fro" xml:lang="fro">seif</i>, now <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">soif</i>, from <i>site</i>, <i lang="fro" xml:lang="fro">estrif</i> (E. <i>strife</i>) from -<i>stridh</i>, <i lang="fro" xml:lang="fro">glaive</i> from <i>gladiu</i>, <i lang="fro" xml:lang="fro">parvis</i> from <i>paradis</i>, and possibly <i lang="fro" xml:lang="fro">avoutre</i> -from <i>adulteru</i>, <i lang="fro" xml:lang="fro">poveir</i>, now <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">pouvoir</i>, from <i>potere</i>. In Old Gothonic -we have the transition from <i>þ</i> to <i>f</i> before <i>l</i>, as in Goth. <i>þlaqus</i> = -MHG. <i lang="gmh" xml:lang="gmh">vlach</i>, Goth. <i>þlaihan</i> = OHG. <i lang="goh" xml:lang="goh">flêhan</i>, <i>þliuhan</i> = OHG. <i lang="goh" xml:lang="goh">fliohan</i>; -cf. also E. <i>file</i>, G. <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">feile</i> = ON. <i lang="non" xml:lang="non">þēl</i>, OE. <i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">þengel</i> and <i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">fengel</i> ‘prince,’ -and probably G. <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">finster</i>, cf. OHG. <i lang="goh" xml:lang="goh">dinstar</i> (with <i>d</i> from <i>þ</i>), OE. <i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">þeostre</i>. -In Latin we have the same transition, e.g. in <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">fumus</i>, corresponding -to Sansk. <i>dhumás</i>, Gr. <i>thumós</i>.<a name="FNanchor_34_34" id="FNanchor_34_34"></a><a href="#Footnote_34_34" class="fnanchor">[34]</a></p> -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_168" id="Page_168">[168]</a></span></p> -<p>The change from the back-open consonant [x]—the sound in -G. <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">buch</i> and Scotch <i>loch</i>—to <i>f</i>, which has taken place in <i>enough</i>, -<i>cough</i>, etc., is of the same kind. Here clearly we have no gradual -passage, but a jump, which could hardly take place in the case -of those who had already learnt how to pronounce the back -sound, but is easily conceivable as a case of defective imitation -on the part of a new generation. I suppose that the same remark -holds good with regard to the change from <i>kw</i> to <i>p</i>, which is found -in some languages, for instance, Gr. <i>hippos</i>, corresponding to Lat. -<i lang="la" xml:lang="la">equus</i>, Gr. <i>hepomai</i> = Lat. <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">sequor</i>, <i>hêpar</i> = Lat. <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">jecur</i>; Rumanian -<i>apa</i> from Lat. <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">aqua</i>, Welsh <i lang="cy" xml:lang="cy">map</i>, ‘son’ = Gaelic <i lang="ghc" xml:lang="ghc">mac</i>, <i>pedwar</i> = Ir. -<i lang="ga" xml:lang="ga">cathir</i>, ‘four,’ etc. In France I have heard children say [pizin] -and [pidin] for <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">cuisine</i>.</p> - - -<h4>IX.—§ 6. Assimilations, etc.</h4> - -<p>There is an important class of sound changes which have -this in common with the class just treated, that the changes take -place suddenly, without an intermediate stage being possible, as -in the changes considered in IX § <a href="#IX_4">4</a>. I refer to those cases -of assimilation, loss of consonants in heavy groups and transposition -(metathesis), with which students of language are familiar -in all languages. Instances abound in the speech of all children; -see above, V § <a href="#V_4">4</a>.</p> - -<p>If now we dared to assert that such pronunciations are never -heard from people who have passed their babyhood, we should -here have found a field in which children have exercised a great -influence on the development of language: but of course we -cannot say anything of the sort. Any attentive observer can -testify to the frequency of such mispronunciations in the speech -of grown-up people. In many cases they are noticed neither by -the speaker nor by the hearer, in many they may be noticed, but -are considered too unimportant to be corrected, and finally, in -some cases the speaker stops to repeat what he wanted to say in -a corrected form. Now it would not obviously do, from their -frequency in adult speech, to draw the inference: “These changes -are not to be ascribed to children,” because from their frequent -appearance on the lips of the children one could equally well infer: -“They are not to be ascribed to grown-up people.” When we -find in Latin <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">impotens</i> and <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">immeritus</i> with <i>m</i> side by side with -<i lang="la" xml:lang="la">indignus</i> and <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">insolitus</i> with <i>n</i>, or when English <i>handkerchief</i> is -pronounced with [ŋk] instead of the original [ndk], the change -is not to be charged against children or grown-up people exclusively, -but against both parties together: and so when <i>t</i> is lost -in <i>waistcoat</i> [weskət], or <i>postman</i> or <i>castle</i>, or <i>k</i> in <i>asked</i>. There<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_169" id="Page_169">[169]</a></span> -is certainly this difference, that when the change is made by older -people, we get in the speech of the same individual first the heavier -and then the easier form, while the child may take up the easier -pronunciation first, because it hears the [n] before a lip consonant -as [m], and before a back consonant as [ŋ], or because it fails -altogether to hear the middle consonant in <i>waistcoat</i>, <i>postman</i>, -<i>castle</i> and <i>asked</i>. But all this is clearly of purely theoretical -interest, and the result remains that the influence of the two -classes, adults and children, cannot possibly be separated in this -domain.<a name="FNanchor_35_35" id="FNanchor_35_35"></a><a href="#Footnote_35_35" class="fnanchor">[35]</a></p> - - -<h4><a id="IX_7"></a>IX.—§ 7. Stump-words.</h4> - -<p>Next we come to those changes which result in what one may -call ‘stump-words.’ There is no doubt that words may undergo -violent shortenings both by children and adults, but here I believe -we can more or less definitely distinguish between their respective -contributions to the development of language. If it is the end -of the word that is kept, while the beginning is dropped, it is -probable that the mutilation is due to children, who, as we have -seen (VII § 7), echo the conclusion of what is said to them and -forget the beginning or fail altogether to apprehend it. So we -get a number of mutilated Christian names, which can then be -used by grown-up people as pet-names. Examples are <i>Bert</i> for -Herbert or Albert, <i>Bella</i> for Arabella, <i>Sander</i> for Alexander, <i>Lottie</i> -for Charlotte, <i>Trix</i> for Beatrix, and with childlike sound-substitution -<i>Bess</i> (and <i>Bet</i>, <i>Betty</i>) for Elizabeth. Similarly in other -languages, from Danish I may mention <i>Bine</i> for Jakobine, <i>Line</i> -for Karoline, <i>Stine</i> for Kristine, <i>Dres</i> for Andres: there are many -others.</p> - -<p>If this way of shortening a word is natural to a child who -hears the word for the first time and is not able to remember -the beginning when he comes to the end of it, it is quite different -when others clip words which they know perfectly well: they -will naturally keep the beginning and stop before they are half -through the word, as soon as they are sure that their hearers -understand what is alluded to. Dr. Johnson was not the only -one who “had a way of contracting the names of his friends, as -Beauclerc, <i>Beau</i>; Boswell, <i>Bozzy</i>; Langton, <i>Lanky</i>; Murphy, -<i>Mur</i>; Sheridan, <i>Sherry</i>; and Goldsmith, <i>Goldy</i>, which Gold<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_170" id="Page_170">[170]</a></span>smith -resented” (Boswell, <i>Life</i>, ed. P. Fitzgerald, 1900, i. 486). -Thackeray constantly says <i>Pen</i> for Arthur Pendennis, <i>Cos</i> for -Costigan, <i>Fo</i> for Foker, <i>Pop</i> for Popjoy, <i>old Col</i> for Colchicum. -In the beginning of the last century Napoleon Bonaparte was -generally called <i>Nap</i> or <i>Boney</i>; later we have such shortened -names of public characters as <i>Dizzy</i> for Disraeli, <i>Pam</i> for Palmerston, -<i>Labby</i> for Labouchere, etc. These evidently are due to adults, -and so are a great many other clippings, some of which have -completely ousted the original long words, such as <i>mob</i> for mobile, -<i>brig</i> for brigantine, <i>fad</i> for fadaise, <i>cab</i> for cabriolet, <i>navvy</i> for -navigator, while others are still felt as abbreviations, such as -<i>photo</i> for photograph, <i>pub</i> for public-house, <i>caps</i> for capital letters, -<i>spec</i> for speculation, <i>sov</i> for sovereign, <i>zep</i> for Zeppelin, <i>divvy</i> -for dividend, <i>hip</i> for hypochondria, <i>the Cri</i> and <i>the Pavvy</i> for the -Criterion and the Pavilion, and many other clippings of words -which are evidently far above the level of very small children. -The same is true of the abbreviations in which school and college -slang abounds, words like <i>Gym</i>(nastics), <i>undergrad</i>(uate), <i>trig</i>(onometry), -<i>lab</i>(oratory), <i>matric</i>(ulation), <i>prep</i>(aration), <i>the Guv</i> -for the governor, etc. The same remark is true of similar -clippings in other languages, such as <i>kilo</i> for kilogram, G. <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">ober</i> -for oberkellner, French <span lang="fr" xml:lang="fr"><i>aristo</i>(crate)</span>, <span lang="fr" xml:lang="fr"><i>réac</i>(tionnaire)</span>, college terms -like <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">desse</i> for <span lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">descriptive (géométrie d.)</span>, <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">philo</i> for <span lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">philosophie</span>, -<i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">preu</i> for premier, <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">seu</i> for second; Danish numerals like <i lang="da" xml:lang="da">tres</i> -for <span lang="da" xml:lang="da">tresindstyve</span> (60), <span lang="da" xml:lang="da"><i>halvfjerds</i>(indstyve)</span>, <span lang="da" xml:lang="da"><i>firs</i>(indstyve)</span>. We are -certainly justified in extending the principle that abbreviation -through throwing away the end of the word is due to those who -have previously mastered the full form, to the numerous instances -of shortened Christian names like <i>Fred</i> for Frederick, <i>Em</i> for -Emily, <i>Alec</i> for Alexander, <i>Di</i> for Diana, <i>Vic</i> for Victoria, etc. -In other languages we find similar clippings of names more or -less carried through systematically, e.g. Greek <i>Zeuxis</i> for Zeuxippos, -Old High German <i>Wolfo</i> for Wolfbrand, Wolfgang, etc., Icelandic -<i>Sigga</i> for Sigríðr, <i>Siggi</i> for Sigurðr, etc.</p> - -<p>I see a corroboration of my theory in the fact that there are -hardly any <i>family</i> names shortened by throwing away the beginning: -children as a rule have no use for family names.<a name="FNanchor_36_36" id="FNanchor_36_36"></a><a href="#Footnote_36_36" class="fnanchor">[36]</a> The -rule, however, is not laid down as absolute, but only as holding -in the main. Some of the exceptions are easily accounted for. -<i>’Cello</i> for violoncello undoubtedly is an adults’ word, originating<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_171" id="Page_171">[171]</a></span> -in France or Italy: but here evidently it would not do to take -the beginning, for then there would be confusion with violin -(violon). <i>Phone</i> for telephone: the beginning might just as well -stand for telegraph. <i>Van</i> for caravan: here the beginning would -be identical with <i>car</i>. <i>Bus</i>, which made its appearance immediately -after the first omnibus was started in the streets of London -(1829), probably was thought expressive of the sound of these -vehicles and suggested <i>bustle</i>. But <i>bacco</i> (<i>baccer</i>, <i>baccy</i>) for tobacco -and <i>taters</i> for potatoes belong to a different sphere altogether: -they are not clippings of the usual sort, but purely phonetic -developments, in which the first vowel has been dropped in rapid -pronunciation (as in <i>I s’pose</i>), and the initial voiceless stop has -then become inaudible; Dickens similarly writes <i>’tickerlerly</i> as -a vulgar pronunciation of particularly.<a name="FNanchor_37_37" id="FNanchor_37_37"></a><a href="#Footnote_37_37" class="fnanchor">[37]</a></p> - - - -<div class="chapter"> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_172" id="Page_172">[172]</a></span></p> - - - -<h3 class="nobreak"><a name="CHAPTER_X" id="CHAPTER_X">CHAPTER X</a><br /> - -<span class="larger">THE INFLUENCE OF THE CHILD—<i>continued</i></span></h3> -</div> - -<div class="blockquot chaptersummary"> - -<p>§ 1. Confusion of Words. § 2. Metanalysis. § 3. Shiftings of Meanings. -§ 4. Differentiations. § 5. Summary. § 6. Indirect Influence. § 7. -New Languages.</p></div> - - -<h4>X.—§ 1. Confusion of Words.</h4> - -<p>Some of the most typical childish sound-substitutions can hardly -be supposed to leave any traces in language as permanently -spoken, because they are always thoroughly corrected by the -children themselves at an early age; among these I reckon the almost -universal pronunciation of <i>t</i> instead of <i>k</i>. When, therefore, we -do find that in some words a <i>t</i> has taken the place of an earlier -<i>k</i>, we must look for some more specific cause of the change: but -this may, in some cases at any rate, be found in a tendency of -children’s speech which is totally independent of the inability -to pronounce the sound of <i>k</i> at an early age, and is, indeed, in -no way to be reckoned among phonetic tendencies, namely, the -confusion resulting from an association of two words of similar -sound (cf. above, p. 122). This, I take it, is the explanation of -the word <i>mate</i> in the sense ‘husband or wife,’ which has replaced -the earlier <i>make</i>: a confusion was here natural, because the word -<i>mate</i>, ‘companion,’ was similar not only in sound, but also in -signification. The older name for the ‘soft roe’ of fishes was -<i>milk</i> (as Dan. <i lang="da" xml:lang="da">mælk</i>, G. <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">milch</i>), but from the fifteenth century -<i>milt</i> has been substituted for it, as if it were the same organ as -the <i>milt</i>, ‘the spleen.’ Children will associate words of similar -sound even in cases where there is no connecting link in their -significations; thus we have <i>bat</i> for earlier <i>bak</i>, <i>bakke</i> (the animal, -<i>vespertilio</i>), though the other word <i>bat</i>, ‘a stick,’ is far removed -in sense.</p> - -<p>I think we must explain the following cases of isolated sound-substitution -as due to the same confusion with unconnected words -in the minds of children hearing the new words for the first time: -<i>trunk</i> in the sense of ‘proboscis of an elephant,’ formerly <i>trump</i>, -from Fr. <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">trompe</i>, confused with <i>trunk</i>, ‘stem of a tree’; <i>stark-naked</i>, -formerly <i>start-naked</i>, from <i>start</i>, ‘tail,’ confused with <i>stark</i>, -‘stiff’; <i>vent</i>, ‘air-hole,’ from Fr. <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">fente</i>, confused with <i>vent</i>,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_173" id="Page_173">[173]</a></span> -‘breath’ (for this <i>v</i> cannot be due to the Southern dialectal transition -from <i>f</i>, as in <i>vat</i> from <i>fat</i>, for that transition does not, as a rule, -take place in French loans); <i>cocoa</i> for <i>cacao</i>, confused with <i>coconut</i>; -<i>match</i>, from Fr. <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">mèche</i>, by confusion with the other <i>match</i>; -<i>chine</i>, ‘rim of cask,’ from <i>chime</i>, cf. G. <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">kimme</i>, ‘border,’ confused -with <i>chine</i>, ‘backbone.’ I give some of these examples with a -little diffidence, though I have no doubt of the general principle -of childish confusion of unrelated words as one of the sources of -irregularities in the development of sounds.</p> - -<p>These substitutions cannot of course be separated from -instances of ‘popular etymology,’ as when the phrase <i>to curry -favour</i> was substituted for the former <i>to curry favel</i>, where <i>favel</i> -means ‘a fallow horse,’ as the type of fraud or duplicity (cf. G. -<i lang="de" xml:lang="de">den fahlen hengst reiten</i>, ‘to act deceitfully,’ <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">einen auf einem -fahlen pferde ertappen</i>, ‘to catch someone lying’).</p> - - -<h4><a id="X_2"></a>X.—§ 2. Metanalysis.</h4> - -<p>We now come to the phenomenon for which I have ventured -to coin the term ‘metanalysis,’ by which I mean that words or -word-groups are by a new generation analyzed differently from -the analysis of a former age. Each child has to find out for himself, -in hearing the connected speech of other people, where one word -ends and the next one begins, or what belongs to the kernel and -what to the ending of a word, etc. (VII § <a href="#VII_6">6</a>). In most cases he -will arrive at the same analysis as the former generation, but now -and then he will put the boundaries in another place than formerly, -and the new analysis may become general. <i>A naddre</i> (the ME. -form for OE. <i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">an nædre</i>) thus became <i>an adder</i>, <i>a napron</i> became -<i>an apron</i>, <i>an nauger</i>: <i>an auger</i>, <i>a numpire</i>: <i>an umpire</i>; and in -psychologically the same way <i>an ewte</i> (older form <i>evete</i>, OE. <i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">efete</i>) -became <i>a newt</i>: metanalysis accordingly sometimes shortens and -sometimes lengthens a word. <i>Riding</i> as a name of one of the three -districts of Yorkshire is due to a metanalysis of <i>North Thriding</i> -(ON. <i lang="non" xml:lang="non">þriðjungr</i>, ‘third part’), as well as of <i>East Thriding</i>, <i>West -Thriding</i>, after the sound of <i>th</i> had been assimilated to the -preceding <i>t</i>.</p> - -<p>One of the most frequent forms of metanalysis consists in the -subtraction of an <i>s</i>, which originally belonged to the kernel of a -word, but is mistaken for the plural ending; in this way we have -<i>pea</i> instead of the earlier <i>peas</i>, <i>pease</i>, <i>cherry</i> for ME. <i lang="enm" xml:lang="enm">cherris</i>, Fr. -<i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">cerise</i>, <i>asset</i> from <i>assets</i>, Fr. <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">assez</i>, etc. Cf. also the vulgar <i>Chinee</i>, -<i>Portuguee</i>, etc.<a name="FNanchor_38_38" id="FNanchor_38_38"></a><a href="#Footnote_38_38" class="fnanchor">[38]</a></p> -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_174" id="Page_174">[174]</a></span></p> -<p>The influence of a new generation is also seen in those cases -in which formerly separate words coalesce into one, as when <i>he -breakfasts</i>, <i>he breakfasted</i>, is said instead of <i>he breaks fast</i>, <i>he broke -fast</i>; cf. <i>vouchsafe</i>, <i>don</i> (third person, <i>vouchsafes</i>, <i>dons</i>), instead of -<i>vouch safe</i>, <i>do on</i> (third person, <i>vouches safe</i>, <i>does on</i>). Here, too, -it is not probable that a person who has once learnt the real form -of a word, and thus knows where it begins and where it ends, -should have subsequently changed it: it is much more likely that -all such changes originate with children who have once made -a wrong analysis of what they have heard and then go on repeating -the new forms all their lives.</p> - - -<h4>X.—§ 3. Shiftings of Meanings.</h4> - -<p>Changes in the meaning of words are often so gradual that -one cannot detect the different steps of the process, and changes -of this sort, like the corresponding changes in the sounds of words, -are to be ascribed quite as much to people already acquainted -with the language as to the new generation. As examples we -may mention the laxity that has changed the meaning of <i>soon</i>, -which in OE. meant ‘at once,’ and in the same way of <i>presently</i>, -originally ‘at present, now,’ and of the old <i>anon</i>. <i>Dinner</i> comes -from OF. <i lang="fro" xml:lang="fro">disner</i>, which is the infinitive of the verb which in other -forms was <i lang="fro" xml:lang="fro">desjeun</i>, whence modern French <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">déjeune</i> (Lat. *<i lang="la" xml:lang="la">desjejunare</i>); -it thus meant ‘breakfast,’ but the hour of the meal -thus termed was gradually shifted in the course of centuries, so -that now we may have dinner twelve hours after breakfast. When -<i>picture</i>, which originally meant ‘painting,’ came to be applied to -drawings, photographs and other images; when <i>hard</i> came to -be used as an epithet not only of nuts and stones, etc., but of words -and labour; when <i>fair</i>, besides the old sense of ‘beautiful,’ -acquired those of ‘blond’ and ‘morally just’; when <i>meat</i>, from -meaning all kinds of food (as in <i>sweetmeats</i>, <i>meat and drink</i>), came -to be restricted practically to one kind of food (butcher’s meat); -when the verb <i>grow</i>, which at first was used only of plants, came -to be used of animals, hairs, nails, feelings, etc., and, instead of -implying always increase, might even be combined with such a -predicative as <i>smaller and smaller</i>; when <i>pretty</i>, from the meaning -‘skilful, ingenious,’ came to be a general epithet of approval -(cf. the modern American, <i>a cunning child</i> = ‘sweet’), and, besides -meaning good-looking, became an adverb of degree, as in <i>pretty -bad</i>: neither these nor countless similar shiftings need be ascribed -to any influence on the part of the learners of English; they can -easily be accounted for as the product of innumerable small -extensions and restrictions on the part of the users of the language -after they have once acquired it.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_175" id="Page_175">[175]</a></span></p> - -<p>But along with changes of this sort we have others that have -come about with a leap, and in which it is impossible to find -intermediate stages between two seemingly heterogeneous meanings, -as when <i>bead</i>, from meaning a ‘prayer,’ comes to mean ‘a perforated -ball of glass or amber.’ In these cases the change is occasioned -by certain connexions, where the whole sense can only be -taken in one way, but the syntactical construction admits of -various interpretations, so that an ambiguity at one point gives -occasion for a new conception of the meaning of the word. The -phrase <i>to count your beads</i> originally meant ‘to count your -prayers,’ but because the prayers were reckoned by little balls, -the word <i>beads</i> came to be transferred to these objects, and lost -its original sense.<a name="FNanchor_39_39" id="FNanchor_39_39"></a><a href="#Footnote_39_39" class="fnanchor">[39]</a> It seems clear that this misapprehension could -not take place in the brains of those who had already associated -the word with the original signification, while it was quite natural -on the part of children who heard and understood the phrase -as a whole, but unconsciously analyzed it differently from the -previous generation.</p> - -<p>There is another word which also meant ‘prayer’ originally, -but has lost that meaning, viz. <i>boon</i>; through such phrases as -‘ask a boon’ and ‘grant a boon’ it came to be taken as meaning -‘a favour’ or ‘a good thing received.’</p> - -<p><i>Orient</i> was frequently used in such connexions as ‘orient -pearl’ and ‘orient gem,’ and as these were lustrous, <i>orient</i> became -an adjective meaning ‘shining,’ without any connexion with the -geographical orient, as in Shakespeare, <cite>Venus</cite> 981, “an orient -drop” (a tear), and Milton, PL i. 546, “Ten thousand banners -rise into the air, With orient colours waving.”</p> - -<p>There are no connecting links between the meanings of ‘glad’ -and ‘obliged,’ ‘forced,’ but when <i>fain</i> came to be chiefly used -in combinations like ‘he was fain to leave the country,’ it was -natural for the younger generation to interpret the whole phrase -as implying necessity instead of gladness.</p> - -<p>We have similar phenomena in certain syntactical changes. -When <i>me thinks</i> and <i>me likes</i> gave place to <i>I think</i> and <i>I like</i>, the -chief cause of the change was that the child heard combinations -like <i>Mother thinks</i> or <i>Father likes</i>, where <i>mother</i> and <i>father</i> can -be either nominative or accusative-dative, and the construction -is thus syntactically ambiguous. This leads to a ‘shunting’ of -the meaning as well as of the construction of the verbs, which must<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_176" id="Page_176">[176]</a></span> -have come about in a new brain which was not originally acquainted -with the old construction.</p> - -<p>As one of the factors bringing about changes in meaning many -scholars mention forgetfulness; but it is important to keep in -view that what happens is not real forgetting, that is, snapping -of threads of thought that had already existed within the same -consciousness, but the fact that the new individual never develops -the threads of thought which in the elder generation bound one -word to another. Sometimes there is no connexion of ideas in -the child’s brain: a word is viewed quite singly as a whole and -isolated, till later perhaps it is seen in its etymological relation. -A little girl of six asked when she was born. “You were born on -the 2nd of October.” “Why, then, I was born on my birthday!” -she cried, her eyes beaming with joy at this wonderfully happy -coincidence. Originally <i>Fare well</i> was only said to some one going -away. If now the departing guest says <i>Farewell</i> to his friend -who is staying at home, it can only be because the word <i>Farewell</i> -has been conceived as a fixed formula, without any consciousness -of the meaning of its parts.</p> - -<p>Sometimes, on the other hand, new connexions of thought -arise, as when we associate the word <i>bound</i> with <i>bind</i> in the phrase -‘he is bound for America.’ Our ancestors meant ‘he is ready to -go’ (ON. <i lang="non" xml:lang="non">búinn</i>, ‘ready’), not ‘he is under an obligation to go.’ -The establishment of new associations of this kind seems naturally -to take place at the moment when the young mind makes -acquaintance with the word: the phenomenon is, of course, closely -related to “popular etymology” (see Ch. VI § <a href="#VI_6">6</a>).</p> - - -<h4>X.—§ 4. Differentiations.</h4> - -<p>Linguistic ‘splittings’ or differentiations, whereby one word -becomes two, may also be largely due to the transmission of the -language to a new generation. The child may hear two pronunciations -of the same word from different people, and then associate -these with different ideas. Thus Paul Passy learnt the word -<i>meule</i> in the sense of ‘grindstone’ from his father, and in the -sense of ‘haycock’ from his mother; now the former in both -senses pronounced [mœl], and the latter in both [mø·l], and the -child thus came to distinguish [mœl] ‘grindstone’ and [mø·l] -‘haycock’ (Ch 23).</p> - -<p>Or the child may have learnt the word at two different periods -of its life, associated with different spheres. This, I take it, may -be the reason why some speakers make a distinction between -two pronunciations of the word <i>medicine</i>, in two and in three -syllables: they take [medsin], but study [medisin].</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_177" id="Page_177">[177]</a></span></p> - -<p>Finally, the child can itself split words. A friend writes: “I -remember that when a schoolboy said that it was a good thing that -the new Headmaster was Dr. Wood, because he would then know -when boys were ‘shamming,’ a schoolfellow remarked, ‘Wasn’t -it funny? He did not know the difference between Doct<i>or</i> and -Doct<i>er</i>.’” In Danish the Japanese are indiscriminately called -either <i lang="da" xml:lang="da">Japanerne</i> or <i lang="da" xml:lang="da">Japaneserne</i>; now, I once overheard my boy -(6.10) lecturing his playfellows: “<i lang="da" xml:lang="da">Japaneserne</i>, that is the soldiers -of Japan, but <i lang="da" xml:lang="da">Japanerne</i>, that is students and children and such-like.” -It is, of course, possible that he may have heard one -form originally when shown some pictures of Japanese soldiers, -and the other on another occasion, and that this may have been -the reason for his distinction. However this may be, I do not -doubt that a number of differentiations of words are to be ascribed -to the transmission of the language to a new generation. Others -may have arisen in the speech of adults, such as the distinction -between <i>off</i> and <i>of</i> (at first the stressed and unstressed form of -the same preposition), or between <i>thorough</i> and <i>through</i> (the former -is still used as a preposition in Shakespeare: “thorough bush, -thorough brier”). But complete differentiation is not established -till some individuals from the very first conceive the forms as -two independent words.</p> - - -<h4>X.—§ 5. Summary.</h4> - -<p>Instead of saying, as previous writers on these questions have -done, either that children have no influence or that they have -the chief influence on the development of language, it will be -seen that I have divided the question into many, going through -various fields of linguistic change and asking in each what may -have been the influence of the child. The result of this investigation -has been that there are certain fields in which it is both impossible -and really also irrelevant to separate the share of the child and -of the adult, because both will be apt to introduce changes of that -kind; such are assimilations of neighbouring sounds and droppings -of consonants in groups. Also, with regard to those very gradual -shiftings either of sound or of meaning in which it is natural -to assume many intermediate stages through which the sound or -signification must have passed before arriving at the final -result, children and adults must share the responsibility for the -change. Clippings of words occur in the speech of both classes, -but as a rule adults will keep the beginning of a word, while very -small children will perceive or remember only the end of a word -and use that for the whole. But finally there are some kinds of -changes which must wholly or chiefly be charged to the account<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_178" id="Page_178">[178]</a></span> -of children: such are those leaps in sound or signification in which -intermediate stages are out of the question, as well as confusions -of similar words and misdivisions of words, and the most violent -differentiations of words.</p> - -<p>I wish, however, here to insist on one point which has, I -think, become more and more clear in the course of our disquisition, -namely, that we ought not really to put the question like this: -Are linguistic changes due to children or to grown-up people? -The important distinction is not really one of age, which is evidently -one of degree only, but that between the first learners of the sound -or word in question and those who use it after having once learnt -it. In the latter case we have mainly to do with infinitesimal -glidings, the results of which, when summed up in the course of -long periods of time, may be very considerable indeed, but in -which it will always be possible to detect intermediate links -connecting the extreme points. In contrast to these changes -occurring <i>after</i> the correct (or original) form has been acquired -by the individual, we have changes occurring <i>simultaneously</i> with -the first acquisition of the word or form in question, and thus -due to the fact of its transmission to a new generation, or, to -speak more generally, and, indeed, more correctly, to new individuals. -The exact age of the learner here is of little avail, as will -be seen if we take some examples of metanalysis. It is highly -probable that the first users of forms like <i>a pea</i> or <i>a cherry</i>, instead -of <i>a pease</i> and <i>a cherries</i>, were little children; but <i>a Chinee</i> and -<i>a Portuguee</i> are not necessarily, or not pre-eminently, children’s -words: on the other hand, it is to me indubitable that these forms -do not spring into existence in the mind of someone who has -previously used the forms <i>Chinese</i> and <i>Portuguese</i> in the singular -number, but must be due to the fact that the forms <i>the Chinese</i> -and <i>the Portuguese</i> (used as plurals) have been at once apprehended -as made up of <i>Chinee</i>, <i>Portuguee</i> + the plural ending <i>-s</i> by a -person hearing them for the first time; similarly in all the other -cases. We shall see in a later chapter that the adoption (on the -part of children and adults alike) of sounds and words from a -foreign tongue presents certain interesting points of resemblance -with these instances of change: in both cases the innovation -begins when some individual is first made acquainted with -linguistic elements that are new to him.</p> - - -<h4>X.—§ 6. Indirect Influence.</h4> - -<p>We have hitherto considered what elements of the language -may be referred to a child’s first acquisition of language. But -we have not yet done with the part which children play in<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_179" id="Page_179">[179]</a></span> -linguistic development. There are two things which must be -sharply distinguished from the phenomena discussed in the preceding -chapter—the first, that grown-up people in many cases -catch up the words and forms used by children and thereby give -them a power of survival which they would not have otherwise; -the second, that grown-up people alter their own language so as -to meet children half-way.</p> - -<p>As for the first point, we have already seen examples in which -mothers and nurses have found the baby’s forms so pretty that -they have adopted them themselves. Generally these forms are -confined to the family circle, but they may under favourable circumstances -be propagated further. A special case of the highest -interest has been fully discussed in the section about words of -the <i>mamma</i>-class.</p> - -<p>As for the second point, grown-up people often adapt their -speech to the more or less imaginary needs of their children by -pronouncing words as they do, saying <i>dood</i> and <i>tum</i> for ‘good’ and -‘come,’ etc. This notion clearly depends on a misunderstanding, -and can only retard the acquisition of the right pronunciation; -the child understands <i>good</i> and <i>come</i> at least as well, if not better, -and the consequence may be that when he is able himself to pronounce -[g] and [k] he may consider it immaterial, because one -can just as well say [d] and [t] as [g] and [k], or may be bewildered -as to which words have the one sound and which the other. -It can only be a benefit to the child if all who come in contact -with it speak from the first as correctly, elegantly and clearly as -possible—not, of course, in long, stilted sentences and with many -learned book-words, but naturally and easily. When the child -makes a mistake, the most effectual way of correcting it is certainly -the indirect one of seeing that the child, soon after it has made -the mistake, hears the correct form. If he says ‘A waps stinged -me’: answer, ‘It stung you: did it hurt much when the wasp -stung you?’ etc. No special emphasis even is needed; next -time he will probably use the correct form.</p> - -<p>But many parents are not so wise; they will say <i>stinged</i> themselves -when once they have heard the child say so. And nurses -and others have even developed a kind of artificial nursery -language which they imagine makes matters easier for the little -ones, but which is in many respects due to erroneous ideas of how -children ought to talk rather than to real observation of the way -children do talk. Many forms are handed over traditionally from -one nurse to another, such as <i>totties</i>, <i>tootems</i> or <i>tootsies</i> for ‘feet’ -(from <i>trotters</i>?), <i>toothy-peg</i> for ‘tooth,’ <i>tummy</i> or <i>tumtum</i> for -‘stomach,’ <i>tootleums</i> for ‘babies,’ <i>shooshoo</i> for ‘a fly.’ I give a -connected specimen of this nursery language (from Egerton,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_180" id="Page_180">[180]</a></span> -<i>Keynotes</i>, 85): “Didsum was denn? Oo did! Was ums de -prettiest itta sweetums denn? Oo was. An’ did um put ’em in -a nasty shawl an’ joggle ’em in an ole puff-puff, um did, was a -shame! Hitchy cum, hitchy cum, hitchy cum hi, Chinaman no -likey me.” This reminds one of pidgin-English, and in a later -chapter we shall see that that and similar bastard languages are -partly due to the same mistaken notion that it is necessary to -corrupt one’s language to be easily understood by children and -inferior races.</p> - -<p>Very frequently mothers and nurses talk to children in -diminutives. When many of these have become established in -ordinary speech, losing their force as diminutives and displacing -the proper words, this is another result of nursery language. The -phenomenon is widely seen in Romance languages, where <i>auricula</i>, -Fr. <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">oreille</i>, It. <i lang="it" xml:lang="it">orecchio</i>, displaces <i>auris</i>, and <i>avicellus</i>, Fr. <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">oiseau</i>, -It. <i lang="it" xml:lang="it">uccello</i>, displaces <i>avis</i>; we may remember that classical Latin -had already <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">oculus</i>, for ‘eye.’<a name="FNanchor_40_40" id="FNanchor_40_40"></a><a href="#Footnote_40_40" class="fnanchor">[40]</a> It is the same in Modern Greek. -An example of the same tendency, though not of the same formal -means of a diminutive ending, is seen in the English <i>bird</i> (originally -= ‘young bird’) and <i>rabbit</i> (originally = ‘young rabbit’), which -have displaced <i>fowl</i> and <i>coney</i>.</p> - -<p>A very remarkable case of the influence of nursery language -on normal speech is seen in many countries, viz. in the displacing -of the old word for ‘right’ (as opposed to left). The distinction -of right and left is not easy for small children: some children in -the upper classes at school only know which is which by looking -at some wart, or something of the sort, on one of their hands, and -have to think every time. Meanwhile mothers and nurses will -frequently insist on the use of the right (dextera) hand, and when -they are not understood, will think they make it easier for the -child by saying ‘No, the <i>right</i> hand,’ and so it comes about that -in many languages the word that originally means ‘correct’ is -used with the meaning ‘dexter.’ So we have in English <i>right</i>, -in German <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">recht</i>, which displaces <i>zeso</i>, Fr. <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">droit</i>, which displaces -<i>destre</i>; in Spanish also <i lang="es" xml:lang="es">la derecha</i> has begun to be used instead -of <i lang="es" xml:lang="es">la diestra</i>; similarly, in Swedish <i lang="sv" xml:lang="sv">den vackra handen</i> instead -of <i lang="sv" xml:lang="sv">högra</i>, and in Jutlandish dialects <i lang="da" xml:lang="da">den kjön hånd</i> instead of -<i lang="da" xml:lang="da">höjre</i>.</p> - - -<h4><a id="X_7"></a>X.—§ 7. New Languages.</h4> - -<p>In a subsequent chapter (XIV § <a href="#XIV_5">5</a>) we shall consider the theory -that epochs in which the changes of some language proceed at a<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_181" id="Page_181">[181]</a></span> -more rapid pace than at others are due to the fact that in times -of fierce, widely extended wars many men leave home and remain -abroad, either as settlers or as corpses, while the women left behind -have to do the field-work, etc., and neglect their homes, the consequence -being that the children are left more to themselves, and -therefore do not get their mistakes in speech corrected as much -as usual.</p> - -<p>A somewhat related idea is at the bottom of a theory advanced -as early as 1886 by the American ethnologist Horatio Hale (see -“The Origin of Languages,” in the American Association for the -Advancement of Science, XXXV, 1886, and “The Development of -Language,” the Canadian Institute, Toronto, 1888). As these -papers seem to have been entirely unnoticed by leading philologists, -I shall give a short abstract of them, leaving out what appears -to me to be erroneous in the light of recent linguistic thought and -research, namely, his application of the theory to explain the -supposed three stages of linguistic development, the monosyllabic, -the agglutinative and the flexional.</p> - -<p>Hale was struck with the fact that in Oregon, in a region not -much larger than France, we find at least thirty different families -of languages living together. It is impossible to believe that -thirty separate communities of speechless precursors of man should -have begun to talk independently of one another in thirty distinct -languages in this district. Hale therefore concludes that the -origin of linguistic stocks is to be found in the language-making -instinct of very young children. When two children who are -just beginning to speak are thrown much together, they sometimes -invent a complete language, sufficient for all purposes of mutual -intercourse, and yet totally unintelligible to their parents. In -an ordinary household, the conditions under which such a language -would be formed are most likely to occur in the case of twins, -and Hale now proceeds to mention those instances—five in all—that -he has come across of languages framed in this manner by -young children. He concludes: “It becomes evident that, to -ensure the creation of a speech which shall be a parent of a new -language stock, all that is needed is that two or more young children -should be placed by themselves in a condition where they will be -entirely, or in a large degree, free from the presence and influence -of their elders. They must, of course, continue in this condition -long enough to grow up, to form a household, and to have -descendants to whom they can communicate their new speech.”</p> - -<p>These conditions he finds among the hunting tribes of America, -in which it is common for single families to wander off from the -main band. “In modern times, when the whole country is occupied, -their flight would merely carry them into the territory of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_182" id="Page_182">[182]</a></span> -another tribe, among whom, if well received, they would quickly -be absorbed. But in the primitive period, when a vast uninhabited -region stretched before them, it would be easy for them to find -some sheltered nook or fruitful valley.... If under such circumstances -disease or the casualties of a hunter’s life should carry -off the parents, the survival of the children would, it is evident, -depend mainly upon the nature of the climate and the ease with -which food could be procured at all seasons of the year. In -ancient Europe, after the present climatal conditions were established, -it is doubtful if a family of children under ten years of -age could have lived through a single winter. We are not, -therefore, surprised to find that no more than four or five language -stocks are represented in Europe.... Of Northern America, -east of the Rocky Mountains and north of the tropics, the same -may be said.... But there is one region where Nature seems -to offer herself as the willing nurse and bountiful stepmother -of the feeble and unprotected ... California. Its wonderful -climate (follows a long description).... Need we wonder that, -in such a mild and fruitful region, a great number of separate -tribes were found, speaking languages which a careful investigation -has classed in nineteen distinct linguistic stocks?” In Oregon, -and in the interior of Brazil, Hale finds similar climatic conditions -with the same result, a great number of totally dissimilar languages, -while in Australia, whose climate is as mild as that of -any of these regions, we find hundreds, perhaps thousands, of -petty tribes, as completely isolated as those of South America, -but all speaking languages of the same stock—because “the other -conditions are such as would make it impossible for an isolated -group of young children to survive. The whole of Australia -is subject to severe droughts, and is so scantily provided with -edible products that the aborigines are often reduced to the -greatest straits.”</p> - -<p>This, then, is Hale’s theory. Let us now look a little closer -into the proofs adduced. They are, as it will be seen, of a twofold -order. He invokes the language-creating tendencies of young -children on the one hand, and on the other the geographical -distribution of linguistic stocks or genera.</p> - -<p>As to the first, it is true that so competent a psychologist as -Wundt denies the possibility in very strong terms.<a name="FNanchor_41_41" id="FNanchor_41_41"></a><a href="#Footnote_41_41" class="fnanchor">[41]</a> But facts -certainly do not justify this foregone conclusion. I must first -refer the reader to Hale’s own report of the five instances known<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_183" id="Page_183">[183]</a></span> -to him. Unfortunately, the linguistic material collected by him -is so scanty that we can form only a very imperfect idea of the -languages which he says children have developed and of the -relation between them and the language of the parents. But -otherwise his report is very instructive, and I shall call special -attention to the fact that in most cases the children seem to have -been ‘spoilt’ by their parents; this is also the case with regard -to one of the families, though it does not appear from Hale’s -own extracts from the book in which he found his facts (G. -Watson, <cite>Universe of Language</cite>, N.Y., 1878).</p> - -<p>The only word recorded in this case is <i>nī-si-boo-a</i> for ‘carriage’; -how that came into existence, I dare not conjecture; -but when it is said that the syllables of it were sometimes so -repeated that they made a much longer word, this agrees very -well with what I have myself observed with regard to ordinary -children’s playful word-coinages. In the next case, described by -E. R. Hun, M.D., of Albany, more words are given. Some of -these bear a strong resemblance to French, although neither the -parents nor servants spoke that language; and Hale thinks that -some person may have “amused herself, innocently enough, by -teaching the child a few words of that tongue.” This, however, -does not seem necessary to explain the words recorded. <i>Feu</i>, -pronounced, we are told, like the French word, signified ‘fire, -light, cigar, sun’: it may be either E. <i>fire</i> or else an imitation of -the sound <i>fff</i> without a vowel, or [fə·] used in blowing out a candle -or a match or in smoking, so as to amuse the child, exactly as -in the case of one of my little Danish friends, who used <i>fff</i> as the -name for ‘smoke, steam,’ and later for ‘funnel, chimney,’ and -finally anything standing upright against the sky, for instance, -a flagstaff. <i>Petee-petee</i>, the name which the Albany girl gave to -her brother, and which Dr. Hun derived from F. <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">petit</i>, may be -just as well from E. <i>pet</i> or <i>petty</i>; and to explain her word for -‘I,’ <i>ma</i>, we need not go to F. <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">moi</i>, as E. <i>me</i> or <i>my</i> may obviously -be thus distorted by any child. Her word for ‘not’ is said to -have been <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">ne-pas</i>, though the exact pronunciation is not given. -This cannot have been taken from the French, at any rate not -from real French, as <i>ne</i> and <i>pas</i> are here separated, and <i>ne</i> is more -often than not pronounced without the vowel or omitted altogether; -the girl’s word, if pronounced something like ['nepa·] may be -nothing else than an imperfect childish pronunciation of <i>never</i>, -cf. the negroes’ form <i>nebber</i>. <i>Too</i>, ‘all, everything,’ of course -resembles Fr. <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">tout</i>, but how should anyone have been able to teach -this girl, who did not speak any intelligible language, a French -word of this abstract character? Some of the other words admit -of a natural explanation from English: <i>go-go</i>, ‘delicacy, as sugar,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_184" id="Page_184">[184]</a></span> -candy or dessert,’ is probably <i>goody-goody</i>, or a reduplicated form -of <i>good</i>; <i>deer</i>, ‘money,’ may be from <i>dear</i>, ‘expensive’; <i>odo</i>, -‘to send for, to go out, to take away,’ is evidently <i>out</i>, as in <i>ma -odo</i>, ‘I want to go out’; <i>gaän</i>, ‘God,’ must be the English word, -in spite of the difference in pronunciation, for the child would never -think of inventing this idea on its own accord; <i>pa-ma</i>, ‘to go to -sleep, pillow, bed,’ is from <i>by-bye</i> or an independent word of the -<i>mamma</i>-class; <i>mea</i>, ‘cat, fur,’ of course is imitative of the sound -of the cat. For the rest of the words I have no conjectures to -offer. Some of the derived meanings are curious, though perhaps -not more startling than many found in the speech of ordinary -children; <i>papa</i> and <i>mamma</i> separately had their usual signification, -but <i>papa-mamma</i> meant ‘church, prayer-book, cross, priest’: -the parents were punctual in church observances; <i>gar odo</i>, -‘horse out, to send for the horse,’ came to mean ‘pencil and -paper,’ as the father used, when the carriage was wanted, to write -an order and send it to the stable. In the remaining three cases -of ‘invented’ languages no specimens are given, except <i>shindikik</i>, -‘cat.’ In all cases the children seem to have talked together -fluently when by themselves in their own gibberish.</p> - -<p>But there exists on record a case better elucidated than Hale’s -five cases, namely that of the Icelandic girl Sæunn. (See Jonasson -and Eschricht in <cite lang="da" xml:lang="da">Dansk Maanedsskrift</cite>, Copenhagen, 1858.) She -was born in the beginning of the last century on a farm in -Húnavatns-syssel in the northern part of Iceland, and began early -to converse with her twin brother in a language that was entirely -unintelligible to their surroundings. Her parents were disquieted, -and therefore resolved to send away the brother, who died soon -afterwards. They now tried to teach the girl Icelandic, but -soon (too soon, evidently!) came to the conclusion that she could -not learn it, and then they were foolish enough to learn <i>her</i> -language, as did also her brothers and sisters and even some of -their friends. In order that she might be confirmed, her elder -brother translated the catechism and acted as interpreter between -the parson and the girl. She is described as intelligent—she -even composed poetry in her own language—but shy and distrustful. -Jonasson gives a few specimens of her language, some -of which Eschricht succeeds in interpreting as based on Icelandic -words, though strangely disfigured. The language to Jonasson, -who had heard it, seemed totally dissimilar to Icelandic in sounds -and construction; it had no flexions, and lacked pronouns. -The vocabulary was so limited that she very often had to supplement -a phrase by means of nods or gestures; and it was difficult -to carry on a conversation with her in the dark. The ingenuity -of some of the compounds and metaphors is greatly admired by<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_185" id="Page_185">[185]</a></span> -Jonasson, though to the more sober mind of Eschricht they appear -rather childish or primitive, as when a ‘wether’ is called <i>mepok-ill</i> -from <i>me</i> (imitation of the sound) + <i>pok</i>, ‘a little bag’ (Icel. -<i lang="is" xml:lang="is">poki</i>) + <i lang="is" xml:lang="is">ill</i>, ‘to cut.’ The only complete sentence recorded is -‘Dirfa offo nonona uhuh,’ which means: ‘Sigurdur gets up -extremely late.’ In his analysis of the whole case Eschricht -succeeds in stripping it of the mystical glamour in which it evidently -appeared to Jonasson as well as to the girl’s relatives; he is -undoubtedly right in maintaining that if the parents had persisted -in only talking Icelandic to her, she would soon have forgotten -her own language; he compares her words with some strange -disfigurements of Danish which he had observed among children -in his own family and acquaintanceship.</p> - -<p>I read this report a good many years ago, and afterwards I -tried on two occasions to obtain precise information about similar -cases I had seen mentioned, one in Halland (Sweden) and the -other in Finland, but without success. But in 1903, when I was -lecturing on the language of children in the University of Copenhagen, -I had the good fortune to hear of a case not far from -Copenhagen of two children speaking a language of their own. -I investigated the case as well as I could, by seeing and hearing -them several times and thus checking the words and sentences -which their teacher, who was constantly with them, kindly took -down in accordance with my directions. I am thus enabled to -give a fairly full account of their language, though unfortunately -my investigation was interrupted by a long voyage in 1904.</p> - -<p>The boys were twins, about five and a half years old when I -saw them, and so alike that even the people who were about them -every day had difficulty in distinguishing them from each other. -Their mother (a single woman) neglected them shamefully when -they were quite small, and they were left very much to shift for -themselves. For a long time, while their mother was ill in a -hospital, they lived in an out-of-the-way place with an old woman, -who is said to have been very deaf, and who at any rate troubled -herself very little about them. When they were four years old, -the parish authorities discovered how sadly neglected they were -and that they spoke quite unintelligibly, and therefore sent them -to a ‘children’s home’ in Seeland, where they were properly -taken care of. At first they were extremely shy and reticent, -and it was a long time before they felt at home with the other -children. When I first saw them, they had in so far learnt the -ordinary language that they were able to understand many everyday -sentences spoken to them, and could do what they were -told (e.g. ‘Take the footstool and put it in my room near the -stove’), but they could not speak Danish and said very little<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_186" id="Page_186">[186]</a></span> -in the presence of anybody else. When they were by themselves -they conversed pretty freely and in a completely unintelligible -gibberish, as I had the opportunity to convince myself when -standing behind a door one day when they thought they were -not observed. Afterwards I got to be in a way good friends with -them—they called me <i>py-ma</i>, <i>py</i> being their word for ‘smoke, -smoking, pipe, cigar,’ so that I got my name from the chocolate -cigars which I used to ingratiate myself with them—and then I -got them to repeat words and phrases which their teacher had -written out for me, and thus was enabled to write down everything -phonetically.</p> - -<p>An analysis of the sounds occurring in their words showed -me that their vocal organs were perfectly normal. Most of the -words were evidently Danish words, however much distorted and -shortened; a voiceless <i>l</i>, which does not occur in Danish, and -which I write here <i>lh</i>, was a very frequent sound. This, combined -with an inclination to make many words end in <i>-p</i>, was enough -to disguise words very effectually, as when <i>sort</i> (black) was made -<i>lhop</i>. I shall give the children’s pronunciations of the names of -some of their new playfellows, adding in brackets the Danish -substratum: <i>lhep</i> (Svend), <i>lhip</i> (Vilhelm), <i>lip</i> (Elisabeth), <i>lop</i> -(Charlotte), <i>bap</i> (Mandse); similarly the doctor was called <i>dop</i>. -In many cases there was phonetic assimilation at a distance, as -when milk (<span lang="da" xml:lang="da">mælk</span>) was called <i>bep</i>, flower (<span lang="da" xml:lang="da">blomst</span>) <i>bop</i>, light (<span lang="da" xml:lang="da">lys</span>) -<i>lhylh</i>, sugar (<span lang="da" xml:lang="da">sukker</span>) <i>lholh</i>, cold (<span lang="da" xml:lang="da">kulde</span>) <i>lhulh</i>, sometimes also <i>ulh</i>, -bed (<span lang="da" xml:lang="da">seng</span>) <i>sæjs</i>, fish (<span lang="da" xml:lang="da">fisk</span>) <i>se-is</i>.</p> - -<p>I subjoin a few complete sentences: <i>nina enaj una enaj hæna -mad enaj</i>, ‘we shall not fetch food for the young rabbits’: <i>nina</i> -rabbit (kanin), <i>enaj</i> negation (nej, no), repeated several times in -each negative sentence, as in Old English and in Bantu languages, -<i>una</i> young (unge). <i>Bap ep dop</i>, ‘Mandse has broken the hobby-horse,’ -literally ‘Mandse horse piece.’ <i>Hos ia bov lhalh</i>, ‘brother’s -trousers are wet, Maria,’ literally ‘trousers Maria brother water.’ -The words are put together without any flexions, and the word -order is totally different from that of Danish.</p> - -<p>Only in one case was I unable to identify words that I understood -either as ‘little language’ forms of Danish words or else -as sound-imitations; but then it must be remembered that they -spoke a good deal that neither I nor any of the people about them -could make anything of. And then, unfortunately, when I began -to study it, their language was already to a great extent ‘humanized’ -in comparison to what it was when they first came to the -children’s home. In fact, I noticed a constant progress during -the short time I observed the boys, and in some of the last -sentences I have noted, I even find the genitive case employed.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_187" id="Page_187">[187]</a></span></p> - -<p>The idiom of these twins cannot, of course, be called an independent, -still less a complete or fully developed language; but -if they were able to produce something so different from the -language spoken around them at the beginning of the twentieth -century and in a civilized country, there can to my mind be no -doubt that Hale is right in his contention that children left to -themselves even more than these were, in an uninhabited region -where they were still not liable to die from hunger or cold, would -be able to develop a language for their mutual understanding -that might become so different from that of their parents as really -to constitute a new stock of language. So that we can now pass -to the other—geographical—side of what Hale advances in favour -of his theory.</p> - -<p>So far as I can see, the facts here tally very well with the -theory. Take, on the one hand, the Eskimo languages, spoken -with astonishingly little variation from the east coast of Greenland -to Alaska, an immense stretch of territory in which small children -if left to themselves would be sure to die very soon indeed. Or -take the Finnish-Ugrian languages in the other hemisphere, exhibiting -a similar close relationship, though spread over wide areas. -And then, on the other hand, the American languages already -adduced by Hale. I do not pretend to any deeper knowledge of -these languages; but from the most recent works of very able -specialists I gather an impression of the utmost variety in -phonetics, in grammatical structure and in vocabulary; see -especially Roland B. Dixon and Alfred L. Kroeber, “The Native -Languages of California,” in the <cite>American Anthropologist</cite>, 1903. -Even where recent research seems to establish some kind of kinship -between families hitherto considered as distinguished stocks (as -in Dixon’s interesting paper, “Linguistic Relationships within the -Shasta-Achomawi Stock,” <span lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">XV Congrès des Américanistes</span>, 1906) -the similarities are still so incomplete, so capricious and generally -so remote that they seem to support Hale’s explanation rather -than a gradual splitting of the usual kind.</p> - -<p>As for Brazil, I shall quote some interesting remarks from -C. F. P. v. Martius, <cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Beiträge zur Ethnographie u. Sprachenkunde -Amerika’s</cite>, 1867, i. p. 46: “In Brazil we see a scant and unevenly -distributed native population, uniform in bodily structure, temperament, -customs and manner of living generally, but presenting a -really astonishing diversity in language. A language is often -confined to a few mutually related individuals; it is in truth a -family heirloom and isolates its speakers from all other people -so as to render any attempt at understanding impossible. On -the vessel in which we travelled up the rivers in the interior of -Brazil, we often, among twenty Indian rowers, could count only<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_188" id="Page_188">[188]</a></span> -three or four that were at all able to speak together ... they -sat there side by side dumb and stupid.”</p> - -<p>Hale’s theory is worthy, then, of consideration, and now, at -the close of our voyage round the world of children’s language, -we have gained a post of vantage from which we can overlook -the whole globe and see that the peculiar word-forms which children -use in their ‘little language’ period can actually throw light -on the distribution of languages and groups of languages over -the great continents. Yes,</p> - -<div class="poetry-container"><div class="poetry"><div class="stanza"> - <div class="verse">Scorn not the little ones! You oft will find</div> - <div class="verse">They reach the goal, when great ones lag behind.</div> -</div></div></div> - - -<div class="chapter"> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_189" id="Page_189">[189]</a></span></p> - - - - -<h2 class="nobreak"><a name="BOOK_III" id="BOOK_III"><i>BOOK III</i></a><br /> - -<span class="larger">THE INDIVIDUAL AND THE WORLD</span></h2> -</div> - - - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_191" id="Page_191">[191]</a></span></p> - - -<h3 class="nobreak"><a name="CHAPTER_XI" id="CHAPTER_XI">CHAPTER XI</a><br /> - -<span class="larger">THE FOREIGNER</span></h3> - -<div class="blockquot chaptersummary"> - -<p>§ 1. The Substratum Theory. § 2. French <i>u</i> and Spanish <i>h</i>. § 3. Gothonic -and Keltic. § 4. Etruscan and Indian Consonants. § 5. Gothonic -Sound-shift. § 6. Natural and Specific Changes. § 7. Power of -Substratum. § 8. Types of Race-mixture. § 9. Summary. § 10. -General Theory of Loan-words. § 11. Classes of Loan-words. -§ 12. Influence on Grammar. § 13. Translation-loans.</p></div> - - -<h4>XI.—§ 1. The Substratum Theory.</h4> - -<p>It seems evident that if we wish to find out the causes of linguistic -change, a fundamental division must be <span class="lock">into—</span></p> - -<p>(1) Changes that are due to the transference of the language -to new individuals, and</p> - -<p>(2) Changes that are independent of such transference.</p> - -<p>It may not be easy in practice to distinguish the two classes, -as the very essence of the linguistic life of each individual is a -continual give-and-take between him and those around him; -still, the division is in the main clear, and will consequently be -followed in the present work.</p> - -<p>The first class falls again naturally into two heads, according -as the new individual does not, or does already, possess a language. -With the former, i.e. with the native child learning his ‘mother-tongue,’ -we have dealt at length in Book II, and we now proceed to -an examination of the influence exercised on a language through its -transference to individuals who are already in possession of another -language—let us, for the sake of shortness, call them foreigners.</p> - -<p>While some earlier scholars denied categorically the existence -of mixed languages, recent investigators have attached a very -great importance to mixtures of languages, and have studied -actually occurring mixtures of various degrees and characters -with the greatest accuracy: I mention here only one name, that -of Hugo Schuchardt, who combines profundity and width of -knowledge with a truly philosophical spirit, though the form of -his numerous scattered writings makes it difficult to gather a just -idea of his views on many questions.</p> - -<p>Many scholars have recently attached great importance to the -subtler and more hidden influence exerted by one language on -another in those cases in which a population abandons its original<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_192" id="Page_192">[192]</a></span> -language and adopts that of another race, generally in consequence -of military conquest. In these cases the theory is that people -keep many of their speech-habits, especially with regard to articulation -and accent, even while using the vocabulary, etc., of the new -language, which thus to a large extent is tinged by the old language. -There is thus created what is now generally termed a <i>substratum</i> -underlying the new language. As the original substratum modifying -a language which gradually spreads over a large area varies -according to the character of the tribes subjugated in different -districts, this would account for many of those splittings-up of -languages which we witness everywhere.</p> - -<p>Hirt goes so far as to think it possible by the help of existing -dialect boundaries to determine the extensions of aboriginal -languages (Idg 19).</p> - -<p>There is certainly something very plausible in this manner of -viewing linguistic changes, for we all know from practical everyday -experience that the average foreigner is apt to betray his nationality -as soon as he opens his mouth: the Italian’s or the German’s -English is just as different from the ‘real thing’ as, inversely, the -Englishman’s Italian or German is different from the Italian or -German of a native: the place of articulation, especially that of -the tongue-tip consonants, the aspiration or want of aspiration -of <i>p</i>, <i>t</i>, <i>k</i>, the voicing or non-voicing of <i>b</i>, <i>d</i>, <i>g</i>, the diphthongization -or monophthongization of long vowels, the syllabification, various -peculiarities in quantity and in tone-movements—all such things -are apt to colour the whole acoustic impression of a foreigner’s -speech in an acquired language, and it is, of course, a natural -supposition that the aboriginal inhabitants of Europe and Asia -were just as liable to transfer their speech habits to new languages -as their descendants are nowadays. There is thus a priori a strong -probability that linguistic substrata have exercised some influence -on the development of conquering languages. But when we -proceed to apply this natural inference to concrete examples of -linguistic history, we shall see that the theory does not perhaps -suffice to explain everything that its advocates would have it -explain, and that there are certain difficulties which have not -always been faced or appraised according to their real value. A -consideration of these concrete examples will naturally lead up to -a discussion of the general principles involved in the substratum -theory.</p> - - -<h4>XI.—§ 2. French <i>u</i> and Spanish <i>h</i>.</h4> - -<p>First I shall mention Ascoli’s famous theory that French [y·] -for Latin <i>u</i>, as in <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">dur</i>, etc., is due to Gallic influence, cf. Welsh -<i>i</i> in <i lang="cy" xml:lang="cy">din</i> from <i>dun</i>, which presupposes a transition from <i>u</i> to [y].<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_193" id="Page_193">[193]</a></span> -Ascoli found a proof in the fact that Dutch also has the pronunciation -[y·], e.g. in <i lang="nl" xml:lang="nl">duur</i>, on the old Keltic soil of the Belgæ, to which -Schuchardt (SlD 126) added his observation of [y] in dialectal -South German (Breisgau), in a district in which there had formerly -been a strong Keltic element. This looks very convincing at -first blush. On closer inspection, doubts arise on many points. -The French transition cannot with certainty be dated very early, -for then <i>c</i> in <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">cure</i> would have been palatalized and changed as -<i>c</i> before <i>i</i> (Lenz, KZ 39. 46); also the treatment of the vowel -in French words taken over into English, where it is not identified -with the native [y], but becomes [iu], is best explained on the assumption -that about 1200 <span class="smcap lowercase">A.D.</span> the sound had not advanced farther -on its march towards the front position than, say, the Swedish -‘mixed-round’ sound in <i lang="sv" xml:lang="sv">hus</i>. The district in which [y] is found -for <i>u</i> is not coextensive with the Keltic possessions; there were -very few Kelts in what is now Holland, and inversely South German -[y] for <i>u</i> does not cover the whole Keltic domain; [y] is found -outside the French territory proper, namely, in Franco-Provençal -(where the substratum was Ligurian) and in Provençal (where there -were very few Galli; cf. Wechssler, L 113). Thus the province -of [y] is here too small and there too large to make the argument -conclusive. Even more fatal is the objection that the Gallic -transition from <i>u</i> to <i>y</i> is very uncertain (Pedersen, GKS 1. § 353). -So much is certain, that the fronting of <i>u</i> was not a <em>common</em> Keltic -transition, for it is not found in the Gaelic (Goidelic) branch.<a name="FNanchor_42_42" id="FNanchor_42_42"></a><a href="#Footnote_42_42" class="fnanchor">[42]</a> -On the other hand, the transition from [u] to [y] occurs elsewhere, -independent of Keltic influence, as in Old Greek (cf. also the Swedish -sound in <i lang="sv" xml:lang="sv">hus</i>): why cannot it, then, be independent in French?</p> - -<p>Another case adduced by Ascoli is initial <i>h</i> instead of Latin -<i>f</i> in the country anciently occupied by the Iberians. Now, Basque -has no <i>f</i> sound at all in any connexion; if the same aversion to -<i>f</i> had been the cause of the Spanish substitution of <i>h</i> for <i>f</i>, we should -expect the substitution to have been made from the moment when -Latin was first spoken in Hispania, and we should expect it to be -found in all positions and connexions. But what do we find -instead? First, that Old Spanish had <i>f</i> in many cases where modern -Spanish has <i>h</i> (i.e. really no sound at all), and this cannot be<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_194" id="Page_194">[194]</a></span> -altogether ascribed to ‘Latinizing scribes.’ On the contrary, the -transition <i>f</i> > <i>h</i> seems to have taken place many centuries after the -Roman invasion, since the Spanish-speaking Jews of Salonika, -who emigrated from Spain about 1500, have to this day preserved -the <i>f</i> sound among other archaic traits (see F. Hanssen, <cite>Span. -Gramm.</cite> 45; Wiener, <cite>Modern Philology</cite>, June 1903, p. 205). And -secondly, that <i>f</i> has been kept in certain connexions; thus, before -[w], as in <i lang="es" xml:lang="es">fuí</i>, <i lang="es" xml:lang="es">fuiste</i>, <i lang="es" xml:lang="es">fué</i>, etc., before <i>r</i> and <i>l</i>, as in <i lang="es" xml:lang="es">fruto</i>, <i lang="es" xml:lang="es">flor</i>, etc. -This certainly is inexplicable if the cause of <i>f</i> > <i>h</i> had been the want -of power on the part of the aborigines to produce the <i>f</i> sound at -all, while it is simple enough if we assume a later transition, taking -place possibly at first between two vowels, with a subsequent -generalization of the <i>f</i>-less forms. Diez is here, as not infrequently, -more sensible than some of his successors (see <cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Gramm. d. roman. -spr.</cite>, 4th ed., 1. 283 f., 373 f.).</p> - - -<h4>XI.—§ 3. Gothonic and Keltic.</h4> - -<p>Feist (KI 480 ff.: cf. PBB 36. 307 ff., 37. 112 ff.) applies the -substratum theory to the Gothonic (Germanic) languages. The -Gothons are autochthonous in northern Europe, and very little -mixed with other races; they must have immigrated just after -the close of the glacial period. But the arrival of Aryan (Indogermanic) -tribes cannot be placed earlier than about 2000 <span class="smcap lowercase">B.C.</span>; -they made the original inhabitants give up their own language. -The nation that thus Aryanized the Gothons cannot have been -other than the Kelts; their supremacy over the Gothons is proved -by several loan-words for cultural ideas or state offices, such as -Gothic <i>reiks</i> ‘king,’ <i>andbahts</i> ‘servant.’ The Aryan language -which the Kelts taught the Gothons was subjected in the process -to considerable changes, the old North Europeans pronouncing -the new language in accordance with their previous speech habits; -instead of taking over the free Aryan accent, they invariably stressed -the initial syllable, and they made sad havoc of the Aryan flexion.</p> - -<p>The theory does not bear close inspection. The number of -Keltic loan-words is not great enough for us to infer such an overpowering -ascendancy on the part of the Kelts as would force the -subjected population to make a complete surrender of their own -tongue. Neither in number nor in intrinsic significance can these -loans be compared with the French loans in English: and yet -the Normans did not succeed in substituting their own language -for English. Besides, if the theory were true, we should not merely -see a certain number of Keltic loan-words, but the whole speech, -the complete vocabulary as well as the entire grammar, would be -Keltic; yet as a matter of fact there is a wide gulf between Keltic<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_195" id="Page_195">[195]</a></span> -and Gothonic, and many details, lexical and grammatical, in the -latter group resemble other Aryan languages rather than Keltic. -The stressing of the first syllable is said to be due to the aboriginal -language. If that were so, it would mean that this population, -in adopting the new speech, had at once transferred its own habit -of stressing the first syllable to all the new words, very much as -Icelanders are apt to do nowadays. But this is not in accordance -with well established facts in the Gothonic languages: we know -that when the consonant shift took place, it found the stress on the -same syllables as in Sanskrit, and that it was this stress on many -middle or final syllables that afterwards changed many of the shifted -consonants from voiceless to voiced (Verner’s law).<a name="FNanchor_43_43" id="FNanchor_43_43"></a><a href="#Footnote_43_43" class="fnanchor">[43]</a> This fact in -itself suffices to prove that the consonant shift and the stress shift -cannot have taken place simultaneously, and thus cannot be due -to one and the same cause, as supposed by Feist. Nor can the -havoc wrought in the old flexions be due to the inability of a new -people to grasp the minute <em>nuances</em> and intricate system of another -language than its own; for in that case too we should have something -like the formless ‘Pidgin English’ from the very beginning, -whereas the oldest Gothonic languages still preserve a great -many old flexions and subtle syntactical rules which have since -disappeared. As a matter of fact, many of the flexions of primitive -Aryan were much better preserved in Gothonic languages than -in Keltic.</p> - - -<h4>XI.—§ 4. Etruscan and Indian Consonants.</h4> - -<p>In another place in the same work (KI 373) Feist speaks of -the Etruscan language, and says that this had only one kind of -stop consonants, represented by the letters <i>k</i> (<i>c</i>), <i>t</i>, <i>p</i>, besides the -aspirated stops <i>kh</i>, <i>th</i>, <i>ph</i>, which in some instances correspond to -Latin and Greek tenues. This, he says, reminds one very strongly -of the sound system of High German (<span lang="de" xml:lang="de">oberdeutschen</span>) dialects, -and more particularly of those spoken in the Alps. Feist here -(and in PBB 36. 340 ff.) maintains that these sounds go back to -a Pre-Gothonic Alpine population, which he identifies with the -ancient Rhætians; and he sees in this a strong support of a -linguistic connexion between the Rhætians and Etruscans. He -finds further striking analogies between the Gothonic and the -Armenian sound systems; the predilection for voiceless stops -and aspirated sounds in Etruscan, in the domain of the ancient -Rhætians and in Asia Minor is accordingly ascribed to the speech -habits of one and the same aboriginal race.</p> -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_196" id="Page_196">[196]</a></span></p> -<p>Here, too, there are many points to which I must take exception. -It is not quite certain that the usual interpretation of Etruscan -letters is correct; in fact, much may be said in favour of the -hypothesis that the letters rendered <i>p</i>, <i>t</i>, <i>k</i> stand really for the -sounds of <i>b</i>, <i>d</i>, <i>g</i>, and that those transcribed <i>ph</i>, <i>th</i>, <i>kh</i> (or Greek φ, -θ, χ) represent ordinary <i>p</i>, <i>t</i>, <i>k</i>. However this may be, Feist -seems to be speaking here almost in the same breath of the first (or -common Gothonic) shift and of the second (or specially High German) -shift, although they are separated from each other by several -centuries and neither cover the same geographical ground nor lead -to the same phonetic result. Neither Armenian nor primitive -Gothonic can be said to be averse to voiced stops, for in both we -find voiced <i>b</i>, <i>d</i>, <i>g</i> for the old ‘mediæ aspiratæ.’ And in both -languages the old voiceless stops became at first probably not -aspirates, but simply voiceless spirants, as in English <i>f</i>ather, <i>th</i>ing, -and Scotch lo<i>ch</i>. Further, it should be noted that we do not find -the tendency to unvoice stops and to pronounce affricates either -in Rhæto-Romanic (Ladin) or in Tuscan Italian; both languages -have unaspirated <i>p</i>, <i>t</i>, <i>k</i> and voiced <i>b</i>, <i>d</i>, <i>g</i>, and the Tuscan -pronunciation of <i>c</i> between two vowels as [x], thus in <i>la casa</i> -[la xa·sa], but not in <i>a casa</i> = [akka·sa], could not be termed -‘aspiration’ except by a non-phonetician; this pronunciation -can hardly have anything to do with the old Etruscan language.</p> - -<p>According to a theory which is very widely accepted, the -Dravidian languages exerted a different influence on the Aryan -languages when the Aryans first set foot on Indian soil, in making -them adopt the ‘cacuminal’ (or ‘inverted’) sounds <i>ḍ</i>, <i>ṭ</i>, <i>ṇ</i> with -<i>ḍh</i> and <i>ṭh</i>, which were not found in primitive Aryan. But even -this theory does not seem to be quite proof against objections. -It is easy to admit that natives accustomed to one place of articulation -of their <i>d</i>, <i>t</i>, <i>n</i> will unconsciously produce the <i>d</i>, <i>t</i>, <i>n</i> of a new -language they are learning in the same place; but then they will -do it everywhere. Here, however, both Dravidian and Sanskrit -possess pure dental <i>d</i>, <i>t</i>, <i>n</i>, pronounced with the tip of the tongue -touching the upper teeth, besides cacuminal <i>ḍ</i>, <i>ṭ</i>, <i>ṇ</i>, in which it -touches the gum or front part of the hard palate. In Sanskrit -we find that the cacuminal articulation occurs only under very -definite conditions, chiefly under the influence of <i>r</i>. Now, a trilled -tongue-point <i>r</i> in most languages, for purely physiological reasons -which are easily accounted for, tends to be pronounced further -back than ordinary dentals; and it is therefore quite natural -that it should spontaneously exercise an influence on neighbouring -dentals by drawing them back to its own point of articulation. -This may have happened in India quite independently of the occurrence -of the same sounds in other vernaculars, just as we find<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_197" id="Page_197">[197]</a></span> -the same influence very pronouncedly in Swedish and in East -Norwegian, where <i>d</i>, <i>t</i>, <i>n</i>, <i>s</i> are cacuminal (supradental) in such -words as <i>bord</i>, <i>kort</i>, <i>barn</i>, <i>först</i>, etc. According to Grandgent -(<cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Neuere Sprachen</cite>, 2. 447), <i>d</i> in his own American English -is pronounced further back than elsewhere before and after <i>r</i>, -as in <i>dry</i>, <i>hard</i>; but in none of these cases need we conjure -up an extinct native population to account for a perfectly -natural development.</p> - - -<h4>XI.—§ 5. Gothonic Sound-shift.</h4> - -<p>Since the time of Grimm the Gothonic consonant changes -have harassed the minds of linguists; they became <em>the</em> sound-shift -and were considered as something <i>sui generis</i>, something out -of the common, which required a different explanation from all -other sound-shifts. Several explanations have been offered, to -some of which we shall have to revert later; none, however, has -been so popular as that which attributes the shift to an ethnic -substratum. This explanation is accepted by Hirt, Feist, Meillet -and others, though their agreement ceases when the question is -asked: What nationality and what language can have been the -cause of the change? While some cautiously content themselves -with saying that there must have been an original population, -others guess at Kelts, Finns, Rhætians or Etrurians—all fascinating -names to minds of a speculative turn.</p> - -<p>The latest treatment of the question that I have seen is by -K. Wessely (in <cite>Anthropos</cite>, XII-XIII 540 ff., 1917). He assumes -the following different substrata, beginning with the most recent: -a Rhæto-Romanic for the Upper-German shift, a Keltic for the -common High-German shift, and a Finnic for the first Germanic -shift with the Vernerian law. This certainly has the merit of neatly -separating sound-shifts that are chronologically apart, except -with regard to the last-mentioned shift, for here the Finns are -made responsible for two changes that were probably separated -by centuries and had really no traits in common. It is curious to -see the transition from <i>p</i> to <i>f</i> and from <i>t</i> to <i>þ</i>—both important -elements of the first shift—here ascribed to Finnic, for as a matter -of fact the two sounds <i>f</i> and <i>þ</i> are not found in present-day Finnish, -and were not found in primitive Ugro-Finnic.<a name="FNanchor_44_44" id="FNanchor_44_44"></a><a href="#Footnote_44_44" class="fnanchor">[44]</a></p> -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_198" id="Page_198">[198]</a></span></p> -<p>When Wessely thinks that the change discovered by Verner -is also due to Finnic influence, his reasons are two: an alleged -parallelism with the Finnic consonant change which he terms -‘Setälä’s law,’ and then the assumption that such a shift, conditioned -by the place of the accent, is foreign to the Aryan race (p. 543). -When, however, we find a closely analogous case only four hundred -years ago in English, where a number of consonants were voiced -according to the place of the stress,<a name="FNanchor_45_45" id="FNanchor_45_45"></a><a href="#Footnote_45_45" class="fnanchor">[45]</a> are we also to say that it is -foreign to the Anglo-Saxon race and therefore presupposes some -non-Aryan substratum? As a matter of fact, the parallelism -between the English and the old Gothonic shift is much closer -than that between the latter and the Finnic consonant-gradation: -in English and in old Gothonic the stress place is decisive, while -in the Finnic shift it is very doubtful whether stress goes for anything; -in both English and old Gothonic the same consonants are -affected (spirants, in English also the combinations [tʃ, ks], but -otherwise no stops), while in Finnic it is the stops that are primarily -affected. In old Gothonic, as in English, the change is simply -voicing, and we have nothing corresponding to the reduction of -double consonants and of consonant groups in Finnic <i lang="fi" xml:lang="fi">pappi</i> / <i lang="fi" xml:lang="fi">papin</i>, -<i lang="fi" xml:lang="fi">otta</i> / <i lang="fi" xml:lang="fi">otat</i>, <i lang="fi" xml:lang="fi">kukka</i> / <i lang="fi" xml:lang="fi">kukan</i>, <i lang="fi" xml:lang="fi">parempi</i> / <i lang="fi" xml:lang="fi">paremman</i>, <i lang="fi" xml:lang="fi">jalka</i> / <i lang="fi" xml:lang="fi">jalan</i>, etc. -On the whole, Wessely’s paper shows how much easier it is to -advance hypotheses than to find truths.</p> - - -<h4>XI.—§ 6. Natural and Specific Changes.</h4> - -<p>Meillet (MSL 19. 164 and 172; cf. <cite>Bulletin</cite> 19. 50 and <cite>Germ.</cite> 18) -thinks that we must distinguish between such phonetic changes -as are natural, i.e. due to universal tendencies, and such as are -peculiar to certain languages. In the former class he includes -the opening and the voicing of intervocalic consonants; there -is also a natural and universal tendency to shorten long words -and to slur the pronunciation towards the end of a word. In the -latter class (changes which are peculiar to and characteristic of -a particular language) he reckons the consonant shifts in Gothonic -and Armenian, the weakening of consonants in Greek and in -Iranian, the tendency to unround back vowels in English and -Slav. Such changes can only be accounted for on the supposition -of a change of language: they must be due to people whose own -language had habits foreign to Aryan. Unfortunately, Meillet -cannot tell us how to measure the difference between natural and<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_199" id="Page_199">[199]</a></span> -peculiar shifts; he admits that they cannot always be clearly -separated; and when he says that there are some extreme cases -‘relativement nets,’ such as those named above, I must confess -that I do not see why the change from the sharp tenuis, as in Fr. -<i>p</i>, <i>t</i>, <i>k</i>, to a slightly aspirated sound, as in English (<cite>Bulletin</cite> 19. 50),<a name="FNanchor_46_46" id="FNanchor_46_46"></a><a href="#Footnote_46_46" class="fnanchor">[46]</a> -or the relaxing of the closure which finally led to the sounds of -[f, þ, x], should be less ‘natural’ than a hundred other changes -and should require the calling in of a <i>deus ex machina</i> in the shape -of an aboriginal population. The unrounding of E. <i>u</i> in <i>hut</i>, etc., -to which he alludes, began about 1600—what ethnic substratum -does that postulate, and is any such required, more than for, say, -the diphthongizing of long <i>a</i> and <i>o</i>?</p> - -<p>Meillet (MSL 19. 172) also says that there are certain speech -sounds which are, as it were, natural and are found in nearly all -languages, thus <i>p</i>, <i>t</i>, <i>k</i>, <i>n</i>, <i>m</i>, and among the vowels <i>a</i>, <i>i</i>, <i>u</i>, while other -sounds are found only in some languages, such as the two English -<i>th</i> sounds or, among the vowels, Fr. <i>u</i> and Russian <i>y</i>. But when -he infers that sounds of the former class are stable and remain -unchanged for many centuries, whereas those of the latter are apt -to change and disappear, the conclusion is not borne out by actual -facts. The consonants <i>p</i>, <i>t</i>, <i>k</i>, <i>n</i>, <i>m</i> are said to have remained -unchanged in many Aryan languages from the oldest times till -the present day—that is, only initially before vowels, which is a -very important reservation and really amounts to an admission -that in the vast majority of cases these sounds are just as unstable -as most other things on this planet, especially if we remember that -nothing could well be more unstable than <i>k</i> before front vowels, -as seen in It. [tʃ] and Sp. [þ] in <i>cielo</i>, Fr. [s] in <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">ciel</i>, and [ʃ] in -<i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">chien</i>, Eng. and Swedish [tʃ] in <i>chin</i>, <i>kind</i>, Norwegian [c] in <i lang="no" xml:lang="no">kind</i>, -Russian [tʃ] in <i>četyre</i> ‘four’ and [s] in <i>sto</i> ‘hundred,’ etc. As -an example of a typically unstable sound Meillet gives bilabial <i>f</i>, -and it is true that this sound is so rare that it is difficult to find -it represented in any language; the reason is simply that the upper -teeth normally protrude above the lower jaw, and that consequently -the lower lip articulates easily against the upper teeth, with the -natural result that where we should theoretically expect the bilabial -<i>f</i> the labiodental <i>f</i> takes its place. And <i>s</i>, which is found almost -universally, and should therefore on Meillet’s theory be very stable, -is often seen to change into <i>h</i> or [x] or to disappear. On the whole, -then, we see that it is not the ‘naturalness’ or universality of a<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_200" id="Page_200">[200]</a></span> -consonant so much as its position in the syllable and word that -decides the question ‘change or no change.’ The relation between -stability and naturalness is seen, perhaps, most clearly in such an -instance as long [a·]: this sound is so natural that English, from -the oldest Aryan to present-day speech, has never been without -it; yet at no time has it been stable, but as soon as one class of -words with long [a·] is changed, a new class steps into its shoes: -(1) Aryan <i>māter</i>, now <i>mother</i>; (2) lengthening of a short <i>a</i> before -<i>n</i>: <i>gās</i>, <i>brāhta</i>, now <i>goose</i>, <i>brought</i>; (3) levelling of <i>ai</i>: <i>stān</i>, now -<i>stone</i>; (4) lengthening of short <i>a</i>: <i>cāld</i>, now <i>cold</i>; (5) later lengthening -of <i>a</i> in open syllable: <i>nāme</i>, now [neim]; (6) mod. <i>carve</i>, <i>calm</i>, -<i>path</i> and others from various sources; and (7) vulgar speech is now -developing new levellings of diphthongs in [ma·l, pa·(ə)] for <i>mile</i>, -<i>power</i>.</p> - - -<h4>XI.—§ 7. Power of Substratum.</h4> - -<p>V. Bröndal has made the attempt to infuse new blood into -the substratum theory through his book, <cite lang="da" xml:lang="da">Substrater og Laan i -Romansk og Germansk</cite> (Copenhagen, 1917). The effect of a substratum, -according to him, is the establishment of a ‘constant -idiom,’ working “without regard to place and time” (p. 76) and -changing, for instance, Latin into Old French, Old French into -Classical French, and Classical French into Modern French. His -task, then, is to find out certain tendencies operating at these -various periods; these are ascribed to the Keltic substratum, -and Bröndal then passes in review a great many languages spoken -in districts where Kelts are known to have lived in former times, -in order to find the same tendencies there. If he succeeds in this -to his own satisfaction, it is only because the ‘tendencies’ established -are partly so vague that they will fit into any language, -partly so ill-defined phonetically that it becomes possible to press -different, nay, in some cases even directly contrary movements -into the same class. But considerations of space forbid me to -enter on a detailed criticism here. I must content myself with -taking exception to the principle that the effect of the ethnic -substratum may show itself several generations after the speech -substitution took place. If Keltic ever had ‘a finger in the pie,’ -it must have been immediately on the taking over of the new -language. An influence exerted in such a time of transition may -have far-reaching after-effects, like anything else in history, but -this is not the same thing as asserting that a similar modification -of the language may take place after the lapse of some centuries -as an effect of the same cause. Suppose we have a series of manuscripts, -A, B, C, D, etc., of which B is copied from A, C from B,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_201" id="Page_201">[201]</a></span> -etc., and that B has an error which is repeated in all the following -copies; now, if M suddenly agrees with A (which the copyist has -never seen), we infer that this reading is independent of A. In the -same way with a language: each individual learns it from his contemporaries, -but has no opportunity of hearing those who have died -before his own time. It is possible that the transition from <i>a</i> to <i>æ</i>, -in Old English (as in <i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">fæder</i>) is due to Keltic influence, but when -we find, many centuries later, that <i>a</i> is changed into [æ] (the present -sound) in words which had not <i>æ</i> in OE., e.g. <i>crab</i>, <i>hallow</i>, <i>act</i>, it is -impossible to ascribe this, as Bröndal does, to a ‘constant Keltic -idiom’ working through many generations who had never spoken -or heard any Keltic. ‘Atavism,’ which skips over one or more -generations, is unthinkable here, for words and sounds are nothing -but habits acquired by imitation.</p> - -<p>So far, then, our discussion of the substratum theory has brought -us no very positive results. One of the reasons why the theories -put forward of late years have been on the whole so unsatisfactory -is that they deal with speech substitutions that have taken place -so far back that absolutely nothing, or practically nothing, is known -of those displaced languages which are supposed to have coloured -languages now existing. What do we know beyond the mere -name of Ligurians or Veneti or Iberians? Of the Pre-Germanic -and Pre-Keltic peoples we know not even the names. As to the -old Kelts who play such an eminent rôle in all these speculations, -we know extremely little about their language at this distant date, -and it is possible that in some cases, at any rate, the Kelts may have -been only comparatively small armies conquering this or that -country for a time, but leaving as few linguistic traces behind -them as, say, the armies of Napoleon in Russia or the Cimbri and -Teutoni in Italy. Linguists have turned from the ‘glottogonic’ -speculations of Bopp and his disciples, only to indulge in dialectogonic -speculations of exactly the same visionary type.</p> - - -<h4><a id="XI_8"></a>XI.—§ 8. Types of Race-mixture.</h4> - -<p>It would be a great mistake to suppose that the conditions, -and consequently the linguistic results, are always the same, -whenever two different races meet and assimilate. The chief -classes of race-mixture have been thus described in a valuable -paper by George Hempl (<cite>Transactions of the American Philological -Association</cite>, XXIX, p. 31 ff., 1898).</p> - -<p>(1) The conquerors are a comparatively small body, who become -the ruling class, but are not numerous enough to impose their -language on the country. They are forced to learn the language -of their subjects, and their grandchildren may come to know that<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_202" id="Page_202">[202]</a></span> -language better than they know the language of their ancestors. -The language of the conquerors dies out, but bequeaths to the native -language its terms pertaining to government, the army, and those -other spheres of life that the conquerors had specially under their -control. Historic examples are the cases of the Goths in Italy -and Spain, the Franks in Gaul, the Normans in France and the -Norman-French in England. Of course, the greater the number -of the conquerors and the longer they had been close neighbours -of the people they conquered, or maintained the bonds that united -them to their mother-country, the greater was their influence. -Thus the influence of the Franks on the language of France was -greater than that of the Goths on the language of Spain, and the -influence of the Norman-French in England was greater still. Yet -in each case the minority ultimately succumbed.</p> - -<p>(2<i>a</i>) The conquest is made by many bodies of invaders, who -bring with them their whole households and are followed for a long -period of time by similar hordes of their kinsmen. The conquerors -constitute the upper and middle classes and a part of the lower -classes of the new community. The natives recede before the -conquerors or become their slaves: their speech is regarded as -servile and is soon laid aside, except for a few terms pertaining -to the humbler callings, the names of things peculiar to the country -and place-names. Examples: Angles and Saxons in Britain -and Europeans in America and Australia, though in the last case -we can hardly speak of race-mixture between the natives and the -immigrants.</p> - -<p>(2<i>b</i>) A more powerful nation conquers the people and annexes -its territory, which is made a province, to which not only governors -and soldiers, but also merchants and even colonists are sent. These -become the upper class and the influential part of the middle class. -If centuries pass and the province is still subjected to the direct -influence of the ruling country, it will more and more imitate -the speech and the habits and customs of that country. Such -was the history of Italy, Spain and Gaul under the Romans; -similar, also, is the story of the Slavs of Eastern Germany and of -the Dutch in New York State; such is the process going on to-day -among the French in Louisiana and among the Germans in their -original settlements in Pennsylvania.</p> - -<p>(3) Immigrants come in scattered bands and at different -times; they become servants or follow other humble callings. -It is usually not to their advantage to associate with their fellow-countrymen, -but rather to mingle with the native population. -The better they learn to speak the native tongue, the faster they -get on in the world. If their children in their dress or speech -betray their foreign origin, they are ridiculed as ‘Dutch’ or Irish,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_203" id="Page_203">[203]</a></span> -or whatever it may be. They therefore take pains to rid themselves -of all traces of their alien origin and avoid using the speech of their -parents. In this way vast numbers of newcomers may be assimilated -year by year till they constitute a large part of the new race, -while their language makes practically no impression on the language -of the country. This is the story of what is going on in all -parts of the United States to-day.</p> - -<p>It will be seen that in classes 1 and 3 the speech of the natives -prevails, while in the two classes comprised under 2 it is that of -the conqueror which eventually triumphs. Further, that, in all -cases except type 2<i>b</i>, that language prevails which is spoken by -what is at the time the majority.</p> - -<p>Sound substitution is found in class 3 in the case of foreigners -who come to America after they have learnt to speak, and of the -children of foreigners who keep up their original language at home. -If, however, while they are still young, they are chiefly thrown -with English-speaking people, they usually gain a thorough mastery -of the English language; thus most of the children, and practically -all of the grandchildren, of immigrants, by the time they are grown-up, -speak English without foreign taint. Their origin has thus -no permanent influence on their adopted language. The same -thing is true when a small ruling minority drops its foreign speech -and learns that of the majority (class 1), and practically also -(class 2<i>a</i>) when a native minority succumbs to a foreign majority, -though here the ultimate language may be slightly influenced -by the native dialect.</p> - -<p>It is different with class 2<i>b</i>: when a whole population comes -in the course of centuries to surrender its natural speech for that -of a ruling minority, sound substitution plays an important part, -and to a great extent determines the character and future of the -language. Hempl here agrees with Hirt in seeing in this fact -the explanation of much (N.B. not all!) of the difference between -the Romanic languages and of the difference between natural -High German and High German spoken in Low German territory, -and he is therefore not surprised when he is told by Nissen that -the dialects of modern Italy correspond geographically pretty -closely to the non-Latin languages once spoken in the Peninsula. -But he severely criticizes Hirt for going so far as to explain the -differentiation of Aryan speech by the theory of sound substitution. -Hirt assumes conditions like those in class 1, and yet thinks that -the results would be like those of class 2<i>a</i>. “It is essential to Hirt’s -theory that the conquering bodies of Indo-Europeans should be -small compared with the number of the people they conquered.... -If we wish to prove that the differentiation of Indo-European -speech was like the differentiation of Romance speech, we must<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_204" id="Page_204">[204]</a></span> -be able to show that the conditions under which the differentiations -took place were alike or equivalent. But even a cursory examination -of the manner in which the Romance countries were Romanized -... will make it clear that no parallel could possibly be drawn -between the conditions under which the Romance languages -arose and those that we can suppose to have existed while the -Indo-European languages took shape.” Hempl also criticizes the -way in which the Germanic consonant-shift is supposed by Hirt -to be due to sound-substitution: when instead of the original</p> - -<p> -<span style="margin-left: 8.5em;">t th d dh</span><br /> -<br /> -Germanic has<br /> -<br /> -<span style="margin-left: 8.5em;">þ þ t ð,</span><br /> -</p> - -<p>these latter sounds, on Hirt’s theory, must be either the native -sounds that the conquered people substituted for the original -sounds, or else they have developed out of such sounds as the natives -substituted. If the first be true, we ask ourselves why the conquered -people did not use their <i>t</i> for the Indo-European <i>t</i>, instead -of substituting it for <i>d</i>, and then substituting <i>þ</i> for the Indo-European -<i>t</i>. If the second supposition be true, the native population -introduced into the language sounds very similar to the original -<i>t</i>, <i>th</i>, <i>d</i>, <i>dh</i>, and all the change from that slightly variant form -to the one that we find in Germanic was of subsequent development—and -must be explained by the usual methods after all.</p> - -<p>I have dwelt so long on Hempl’s paper because, in spite of its -(to my mind) fundamental importance, it has been generally overlooked -by supporters of the substratum theory. To construct -a true theory, it will be necessary to examine the largest possible -number of facts with regard to race-mixture capable of being -tested by scientific methods. In this connexion the observations -of Lenz in South America and of Pușcariu in Rumania are especially -valuable. The former found that the Spanish spoken in Chile -was greatly influenced in its sounds by the speech of the native -Araucanians (see <cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Zeitschr. f. roman. Philologie</cite>, 17. 188 ff., 1893). -Now, what were the facts in regard to the population speaking -this language? The immigrants were chiefly men, who in many -cases necessarily married native women and left the care of their -children to a great extent in the hands of Indian servants. As -the natives were more warlike than in many other parts of -South America, there was for a very long time a continuous -influx of Spanish soldiers, many of whom, after a short time, -settled down peacefully in the country. More Spanish soldiers, -indeed, arrived in Chile in the course of the sixteenth -and seventeenth centuries than in the whole of the rest of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_205" id="Page_205">[205]</a></span> -South America. Accordingly, by the beginning of the eighteenth -century the Indians had been either driven back or else assimilated, -and at the beginning of the War of Liberation early in -the nineteenth century Chile was the only State in which there -was a uniform Spanish-speaking population. In the greater part -of Chile the population is denser than anywhere else in South -America, and this population speaks nothing but Spanish, while -in Peru and Bolivia nearly the whole rural population still speaks -more or less exclusively Keshua or Aimará, and these languages -are also used occasionally, or at any rate understood, by the whites. -Chile is thus the only country in which a real Spanish people’s -dialect could develop. (In Hempl’s classification this would be -a typical case of class 2<i>a</i>.) In the other Spanish-American countries -the Spanish-speakers are confined to the upper ruling class, -there being practically no lower class with Spanish as its mother-tongue, -except in a couple of big cities. Thus we understand that -the Peruvian who has learnt his Spanish at school has a purer -Castilian pronunciation than the Chilean; yet, apart from pronunciation, -the educated Chilean’s Spanish is much more correct -and fluent than that of the other South Americans, whose language -is stiff and vocabulary scanty, because they have first learnt some -Indian language in childhood. Lenz’s Chileans, who have often -been invoked by the adherents of the unlimited substratum theory, -thus really serve to show that sound substitution takes place -only under certain well-defined conditions.</p> - -<p>Pușcariu (in <cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Prinzipienfragen der romanischen Sprachwissenschaft</cite>, -<cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Beihefte zur Zschr. f. rom. Phil.</cite>, 1910) says that in a Saxon -village which had been almost completely Rumanianized he had -once talked for hours with a peasant without noticing that he -was not a native Rumanian: he was, however, a Saxon, who spoke -Saxon with his wife, but Rumanian with his son, because the -latter language was easier to him, as he had acquired the Rumanian -basis of articulation. Here, then, there was no sound substitution, -and in general we may say that the less related two languages -are, the fewer will be the traces of the original language left on -the new language (p. 49). The reason must be that people who -naturally speak a closely related language are easily understood -even when their acquired speech has a tinge of dialect: there is thus -no inducement for them to give up their pronunciation. Pușcariu -also found that it was much more difficult for him to rid himself -of his dialectal traits in Rumanian than to acquire a correct pronunciation -of German or French. He therefore disbelieves in a -direct influence exerted by the indigenous languages on the formation -of the Romanic languages (and thus goes much further than -Hempl). All these languages, and particularly Rumanian, during<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_206" id="Page_206">[206]</a></span> -the first centuries of the Middle Ages underwent radical transformations -not paralleled in the thousand years ensuing. This -may have been partly due to an influence exerted by ethnic mixture -on the whole character of the young nations and through that also -on their language. But other factors have certainly also played -an important rôle, especially the grouping round new centres -with other political aims than those of ancient Rome, and consequent -isolation from the rest of the Romanic peoples. Add to this -the very important emancipation of the ordinary conversational -language from the yoke of Latin. In the first Christian centuries -the influence of Latin was so overpowering in official life and in -the schools that it obstructed a natural development. But soon -after the third century the educational level rapidly sank, and -political events broke the power not only of Rome, but also of its -language. The speech of the masses, which had been held in fetters -for so long, now asserted itself in full freedom and with elemental -violence, the result being those far-reaching changes by which -the Romanic languages are marked off from Latin. Language -and nation or race must not be confounded: witness Rumania, -whose language shows very few dialectal variations, though the -populations of its different provinces are ethnically quite distinct -(ib. p. 51).</p> - - -<h4>XI.—§ 9. Summary.</h4> - -<p>The general impression gathered from the preceding investigation -must be that it is impossible to ascribe to an ethnic substratum -all the changes and dialectal differentiations which some linguists -explain as due to this sole cause. Many other influences must -have been at work, among which an interruption of intercourse -created by natural obstacles or social conditions of various kinds -would be of prime importance. If we take ethnic substrata as -the main or sole source of dialectal differentiation, it will be hard -to account for the differences between Icelandic and Norwegian, -for Iceland was very sparsely inhabited when the ‘land-taking’ -took place, and still harder to account for the very great divergences -that we witness between the dialects spoken in the Faroe -Islands. A mere turning over the leaves of Bennike and Kristensen’s -maps of Danish dialects (or the corresponding maps of -France) will show the impossibility of explaining the crisscross of -boundaries of various phonetic phenomena as entirely due to -ethnical differences in the aborigines. On the other hand, the speech -of Russian peasants is said to be remarkably free from dialectal -divergences, in spite of the fact that it has spread in comparatively -recent times over districts inhabited by populations with<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_207" id="Page_207">[207]</a></span> -languages of totally different types (Finnic, Turkish, Tataric). I -thus incline to think that sound substitution cannot have produced -radical changes, but has only played a minor part in the -development of languages. There are, perhaps, also interesting -things to be learnt from conditions in Finland. Here Swedish -has for many centuries been the language of the ruling minority, -and it was only in the course of the nineteenth century that Finnish -attained to the dignity of a literary language. The sound systems -of Swedish and Finnish are extremely unlike: Finnish lacks many -of the Swedish sounds, such as <i>b</i>, <i>d</i> (what is written <i>d</i> is either -mute or else a kind of weak <i>r</i>), <i>g</i> and <i>f</i>. No word can begin with -more than one consonant, consequently Swedish <i lang="sv" xml:lang="sv">strand</i> and <i lang="sv" xml:lang="sv">skräddare</i>, -‘tailor,’ are represented in the form of the loan-words <i lang="fi" xml:lang="fi">ranta</i> -and <i lang="fi" xml:lang="fi">räätäli</i>. Now, in spite of the fact that most Swedish-speaking -people have probably spoken Finnish as children and have had -Finnish servants and playfellows to teach them the language, -none of these peculiarities have influenced their Swedish: what -makes them recognizable as hailing from Finland (‘<span lang="sv" xml:lang="sv">finska -brytningen</span>’) is not simplification of consonant groups or substitution -of <i>p</i> for <i>b</i>, etc., but such small things as the omission of the -‘compound tone,’ the tendency to lengthen the second consonant -in groups like <i>ns</i>, and European (‘back’) <i>u</i> instead of the Swedish -mixed vowel.</p> - -<p>But if sound substitution as a result of race-mixture and of -conquest cannot have played any very considerable part in the -differentiation of languages as wholes, there is another domain -in which sound substitution is very important, that is, in the shape -which loan-words take in the languages into which they are introduced. -However good the pronunciation of the first introducer -of a word may have been, it is clear that when a word is extensively -used by people with no intimate and first-hand knowledge of the -language from which it was taken, most of them will tend to pronounce -it with the only sounds with which they are familiar, those -of their own language. Thus we see that the English and Russians, -who have no [y] in their own speech, substitute for it the -combination [ju, iu] in recent loans from French. Scandinavians -have no voiced [z] and [ʒ] and therefore, in such loans from French -or English as <i>kusine</i>, <i>budget</i>, <i>jockey</i>, etc., substitute the voiceless -[s] and [ʃj], or [sj]. The English will make a diphthong of the -final vowels of such words as <i>bouquet</i>, <i>beau</i> [bu·kei, bou], and will -slur the <i>r</i> of such French words as <i>boulevard</i>, etc. The same transference -of speech habits from one’s native language also affects -such important things as quantity, stress and tone: the English -have no final short stressed vowels, such as are found in <i>bouquet</i>, -<i>beau</i>; hence their tendency to lengthen as well as diphthongize<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_208" id="Page_208">[208]</a></span> -these sounds, while the French will stress the final syllable of -recent loans, such as <i>jury</i>, <i>reporter</i>. These phenomena are so universal -and so well known that they need no further illustration.</p> - -<p>The more familiar such loan-words are, the more unnatural -it would be to pronounce them with foreign sounds or according -to foreign rules of quantity and stress; for this means in each -case a shunting of the whole speech-apparatus on to a different -track for one or two words and then shifting back to the original -‘basis of articulation’—an effort that many speakers are quite -incapable of and one that in any case interferes with the natural -and easy flow of speech.</p> - - -<h4><a id="XI_10"></a>XI.—§ 10. General Theory of Loan-words.</h4> - -<p>In the last paragraphs we have already broached a very important -subject, that of loan-words.<a name="FNanchor_47_47" id="FNanchor_47_47"></a><a href="#Footnote_47_47" class="fnanchor">[47]</a> No language is entirely -free from borrowed words, because no nation has ever been completely -isolated. Contact with other nations inevitably leads to -borrowings, though their number may vary very considerably. -Here we meet with a fundamental principle, first formulated by -E. Windisch (in his paper “<span lang="de" xml:lang="de">Zur Theorie der Mischsprachen und -Lehnwörter</span>,” <cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Verh. d. sächsischen Gesellsch. d. Wissensch.</cite>, XLIX, -1897, p. 107 ff.): “It is not the foreign language a nation learns -that turns into a mixed language, but its own native language -becomes mixed under the influence of a foreign language.” When -we try to learn and talk a foreign tongue we do not introduce into -it words taken from our own language; our endeavour will always -be to speak the other language as purely as possible, and generally -we are painfully conscious of every native word that we intrude -into phrases framed in the other tongue. But what we thus avoid -in speaking a foreign language we very often do in our own. -Frederick the Great prided himself on his good French, and in his -French writings we do not find a single German word, but whenever -he wrote German his sentences were full of French words and -phrases. This being the general practice, we now understand -why so few Keltic words were taken over into French and -English. There was nothing to induce the ruling classes to learn<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_209" id="Page_209">[209]</a></span> -the language of the inferior natives: it could never be fashionable -for them to show an acquaintance with a despised tongue by using -now and then a Keltic word. On the other hand, the Kelt would -have to learn the language of his masters, and learn it well; and -he would even among his comrades like to show off his knowledge -by interlarding his speech with words and turns from the language -of his betters. Loan-words always show a superiority of the nation -from whose language they are borrowed, though this superiority -may be of many different kinds.</p> - -<p>In the first place, it need not be extensive: indeed, in some -of the most typical cases it is of a very partial character and -touches only on one very special point. I refer to those instances -in which a district or a people is in possession of some special -thing or product wanted by some other nation and not produced -in that country. Here quite naturally the name used by the natives -is taken over along with the thing. Obvious examples are the -names of various drinks: <i>wine</i> is a loan from Latin, <i>tea</i> from Chinese, -<i>coffee</i> from Arabic, <i>chocolate</i> from Mexican, and <i>punch</i> from Hindustani. -A certain type of carriage was introduced about 1500 -from Hungary and is known in most European languages by its -Magyar name: E. <i>coach</i>, G. <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">kutsche</i>, etc. <i>Moccasin</i> is from -Algonquin, <i>bamboo</i> from Malay, <i>tulip</i> and <i>turban</i> (ultimately the -same word) from Persian. A slightly different case is when some -previously unknown plant or animal is made known through some -foreign nation, as when we have taken the name of <i>jasmine</i> from -Persian, <i>chimpanzee</i> from some African, and <i>tapir</i> from some -Brazilian language. It is characteristic of all words of this kind -that only a few of them are taken from each foreign language, -and that they have nearly all of them gone the round of all -civilized languages, so that they are now known practically all -over the world.</p> - -<p>Other loan-words form larger groups and bear witness to the -cultural superiority of some nation in some one specified sphere -of activity or branch of knowledge: such are the Arabic words -relating to mathematics and astronomy (<i>algebra</i>, <i>zero</i>, <i>cipher</i>, -<i>azimuth</i>, <i>zenith</i>, in related fields <i>tariff</i>, <i>alkali</i>, <i>alcohol</i>), the Italian -words relating to music (<i>piano</i>, <i>allegro</i>, <i>andante</i>, <i>solo</i>, <i>soprano</i>, -etc.) and commerce (<i>bank</i>, <i>bankrupt</i>, <i>balance</i>, <i>traffic</i>, <i>ducat</i>, <i>florin</i>)—one -need not accumulate examples, as everybody interested in -the subject of this book will be able to supply a great many from -his own reading. The most comprehensive groups of this kind -are those French, Latin and Greek words that have flooded the -whole world of Western civilization from the Middle Ages and -the Renaissance and have given a family-character to all those -parts of the vocabularies of otherwise different languages which<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_210" id="Page_210">[210]</a></span> -are concerned with the highest intellectual and technical activities. -See the detailed discussion of these strata of loan-words in English -in GS ch. v and vi.</p> - -<p>When one nation has imbibed for centuries the cultural influence -of another, its language may have become so infiltrated with -words from the other language that these are found in most sentences, -at any rate in nearly every sentence dealing with things -above the simplest material necessities. The best-known examples -are English since the influx of French and classical words, and -Turkish with its wholesale importations from Arabic. Another -example is Basque, in which nearly all expressions for religious -and spiritual ideas are Romanic. Basque is naturally very poor -in words for general ideas; it has names for special kinds of trees, -but ‘tree’ is <i lang="eu" xml:lang="eu">arbolia</i>, from Spanish <i lang="es" xml:lang="es">árbol</i>, ‘animal’ is <i lang="eu" xml:lang="eu">animale</i>, -‘colour’ <i lang="eu" xml:lang="eu">colore</i>, ‘plant’ <i lang="eu" xml:lang="eu">planta</i> or <i lang="eu" xml:lang="eu">landare</i>, ‘flower’ <i lang="eu" xml:lang="eu">lore</i> or <i lang="eu" xml:lang="eu">lili</i>, -‘thing’ <i lang="eu" xml:lang="eu">gauza</i>, ‘time’ <i lang="eu" xml:lang="eu">dembora</i>. Thus also many of its names -for utensils and garments, weights and measures, arms, etc., are -borrowed; ‘king’ is <i lang="eu" xml:lang="eu">errege</i>, ‘law’ <i lang="eu" xml:lang="eu">lege</i>, <i lang="eu" xml:lang="eu">lage</i>, ‘master’ <i lang="eu" xml:lang="eu">maisu</i>, -etc. (See <cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Zs. f. roman. Phil.</cite>, 17. 140 ff.)</p> - -<p>In a great many cases linguistic borrowing must be considered -a necessity, but this is not always so. When a nation has once -got into the habit of borrowing words, people will very often use -foreign words where it would have been perfectly possible to express -their ideas by means of native speech-material, the reason -for going out of one’s own language being in some cases the desire to -be thought fashionable or refined through interlarding one’s speech -with foreign words, in others simply laziness, as is very often the -case when people are rendering thoughts they have heard or read -in a foreign tongue. Translators are responsible for the great -majority of these intrusive words, which might have been avoided -by a resort to native composition or derivation, or very often by -turning the sentence a little differently from the foreign text. -The most thoroughgoing speech mixtures are due much less to -real race-mixture than to continued cultural contact, especially -of a literary character, as is seen very clearly in English, where -the Romanic element is only to a very small extent referable to -the Norman conquerors, and far more to the peaceful relations -of the following centuries. That Greek and Latin words have -come in through the medium of literature hardly needs saying. -Many of these words are superfluous: “The native words <i>cold</i>, -<i>cool</i>, <i>chilly</i>, <i>icy</i>, <i>frosty</i>, might have seemed sufficient for all purposes, -without any necessity for importing <i>frigid</i>, <i>gelid</i> and <i>algid</i>, -which, as a matter of fact, are found neither in Shakespeare nor -in the Authorized Version of the Bible nor in the poetical works -of Milton, Pope, Cowper and Shelley” (GS § 136). But on the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_211" id="Page_211">[211]</a></span> -other hand it cannot be denied that the imported words have in -many instances enriched the language through enabling its users -to obtain greater variety and to find expressions for many subtle -shades of thought. The question of the value of loan-words cannot -be dismissed offhand, as the ‘purists’ in many countries are -inclined to imagine, with the dictum that foreign words should be -shunned like the plague, but requires for its solution a careful -consideration of the merits and demerits of each separate foreign -term viewed in connexion with the native resources for expressing -that particular idea.</p> - - -<h4>XI.—§ 11. Classes of Loan-words.</h4> - -<p>It is quite natural that there should be a much greater inclination -everywhere to borrow ‘full’ words (substantives, adjectives, -notional verbs) than ‘empty’ words (pronouns, prepositions, -conjunctions, auxiliary verbs), to which class most of the ‘grammatical’ -words belong. But there is no hard-and-fast limit between -the two classes. It is rare for a language to take such words as -numerals from another language; yet examples are found here -and there—thus, in connexion with special games, etc. Until -comparatively recently, dicers and backgammon-players counted -in England by means of the French words <i>ace</i>, <i>deuce</i>, <i>tray</i>, <i>cater</i>, -<i>cinque</i>, <i>size</i>, and with the English game of lawn tennis the English -way of counting (fifteen love, etc.) has been lately adopted in -Russia and to some extent also in Denmark. In some parts of -England Welsh numerals were until comparatively recent times -used in the counting of sheep. Cattle-drivers in Jutland used to -count from 20 to 90 in Low German learnt in Hamburg and Holstein, -where they sold their cattle. In this case the clumsiness and want -of perspicuity of the Danish expressions (<i lang="da" xml:lang="da">halvtredsindstyve</i> for Low -German <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">föfdix</i>, etc.) may have been one of the reasons for preferring -the German words; in the same way the clumsiness of the Eskimo -way of counting (“third toe on the second foot of the fourth man,” -etc.) has favoured the introduction into Greenlandic of the Danish -words for 100 and 1,000: with an Eskimo ending, <i>untritigdlit</i> and -<i>tusintigdlit</i>. Most Japanese numerals are Chinese. And of course -<i>million</i> and <i>milliard</i> are used in most civilized countries.</p> - -<p>Prepositions, too, are rarely borrowed by one language from -another. Yet the Latin (Ital.) <i>per</i> is used in English, German -and Danish, and the French <i>à</i> in the two latter languages, and both -are extending their domain beyond the commercial language in -which they were first used. The Greek <i>kata</i>, at first also commercial, -has in Spanish found admission into the ordinary language and -has become the pronoun <i lang="es" xml:lang="es">cada</i> ‘each.’</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_212" id="Page_212">[212]</a></span></p> - -<p>Personal and demonstrative pronouns, articles and the like are -scarcely ever taken over from one language to another. They are -so definitely woven into the innermost texture of a language that -no one would think of giving them up, however much he might -like to adorn his speech with words from a foreign source. If, -therefore, in one instance we find a case of a language borrowing -words of this kind, we are justified in thinking that exceptional -causes must have been at work, and such really proves to be the -case in English, which has adopted the Scandinavian forms <i>they</i>, -<i>them</i>, <i>their</i>. It is usual to speak of English as being a mixture of -native Old English (‘Anglo-Saxon’) and French, but as a matter -of fact the French influence, powerful as it is in the vocabulary -and patent as it is to the eyes of everybody, is superficial in comparison -with the influence exercised in a much subtler way by the -Scandinavian settlers in the North of England. The French -influence is different in extent, but not in kind, from the French -influence on German or the old Gothonic influence on Finnic; -it is perhaps best compared with the German influence on Danish -in the Middle Ages. But the Scandinavian influence on English -is of a different kind. The number of Danish and Norwegian -settlers in England must have been very large, as is shown by -the number of Scandinavian place-names; yet that does not -account for everything. A most important factor was the great -similarity of the two languages, in spite of numerous points of -difference. Accordingly, when their fighting was over, the invaders -and the original population would to some extent be able to make -themselves understood by one another, like people talking two -dialects of the same language, or like students from Copenhagen -and from Lund nowadays. Many of the most common words -were absolutely identical, and others differed only slightly. Hence -it comes that in the Middle English texts we find a great many -double forms of the same word, one English and the other Scandinavian, -used side by side, some of these doublets even surviving -till the present day, though now differentiated in sense (e.g. <i>whole</i>, -<i>hale</i>; <i>no</i>, <i>nay</i>; <i>from</i>, <i>fro</i>; <i>shirt</i>, <i>skirt</i>), while in other cases one -only of the two forms, either the native or the Scandinavian, has -survived; thus the Scandinavian <i>sister</i> and <i>egg</i> have ousted the -English <i>sweostor</i> and <i>ey</i>. We find, therefore, a great many words -adopted of a kind not usually borrowed; thus, everyday verbs and -adjectives like <i>take</i>, <i>call</i>, <i>hit</i>, <i>die</i>, <i>ill</i>, <i>ugly</i>, <i>wrong</i>, and among substantives -such non-technical ones as <i>fellow</i>, <i>sky</i>, <i>skin</i>, <i>wing</i>, etc. -(For details see my GS ch. iv.) All this indicates an intimate fusion -of the two races and of the two languages, such as is not provided -for in any of the classes described by Hempl (above, § <a href="#XI_8">8</a>). In -most speech-mixtures the various elements remain distinct and can<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_213" id="Page_213">[213]</a></span> -be separated, just as after shuffling a pack of cards you can pick -out the hearts, spades, etc.; but in the case of English and Scandinavian -we have a subtler and more intimate fusion, very much -as when you put a lump of sugar into a cup of tea and a few minutes -afterwards are quite unable to say which is tea and which is sugar.</p> - - -<h4>XI.—§ 12. Influence on Grammar.</h4> - -<p>The question has often been raised whether speech-mixture -affects the grammar of a language which has borrowed largely -from some other language. The older view is expressed pointedly -by Whitney (L 199): “Such a thing as a language with a mixed -grammatical apparatus has never come under the cognizance of -linguistic students: it would be to them a monstrosity; it seems -an impossibility.” This is an exaggeration, and cannot be justified, -for the simple reason that the vocabulary of a language and its -‘grammatical apparatus’ cannot be nicely separated in the way -presupposed: indeed, much of the borrowed material mentioned -in our last paragraphs does belong to the grammatical apparatus. -But there is, of course, some truth in Whitney’s dictum. When -a word is borrowed it is not as a rule taken over with all the elaborate -flexion which may belong to it in its original home; as a rule, -one form only is adopted, it may be the nominative or some other -case of a noun, the infinitive or the present or the naked stem of -a verb. This form is then either used unchanged or with the endings -of the adopting language, generally those of the most ‘regular’ -declension or conjugation. It is an exceptional case when more -than one flexional form is taken over, and this case does not occur -in really popular loans. In learned usage we find in older Danish -such case-flexion as gen. <i>Christi</i>, dat. <i>Christo</i>, by the side of nom. -<i>Christus</i>, also, e.g., <i>i theatro</i>, and still sometimes in German we -have the same usage: e.g. <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">mit den pronominibus</i>. In a somewhat -greater number of instances the plural form is adopted as well as -the singular form, as in English <i>fungi</i>, <i>formulæ</i>, <i>phenomena</i>, <i>seraphim</i>, -etc., but the natural tendency is always towards using the -native endings, <i>funguses</i>, <i>formulas</i>, etc., and this has prevailed in -all popular words, e.g. <i>ideas</i>, <i>circuses</i>, <i>museums</i>. As the formation -of cases, tenses, etc., in different languages is often very irregular, -and the distinctive marks are often so intimately connected with -the kernel of the word and so unsubstantial as not to be easily -distinguished, it is quite natural that no one should think of -borrowing such endings, etc., and applying them to native words. -Schuchardt once thought that the English genitive ending <i>s</i> had -been adopted into Indo-Portuguese (in the East Indies), where <i lang="pt" xml:lang="pt">gobernadors -casa</i> stands for ‘governor’s house,’ but he now explains the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_214" id="Page_214">[214]</a></span> -form more correctly as originating in the possessive pronoun <i lang="pt" xml:lang="pt">su</i>: -<i lang="pt" xml:lang="pt">gobernador su casa</i> (<span lang="de" xml:lang="de">dem g. sein haus</span>, <cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Sitzungsber. der preuss. -Akademie</cite>, 1917, 524).</p> - -<p>It was at one time commonly held that the English plural -ending <i>s</i>, which in Old English was restricted in its application, -owes its extension to the influence of French. This theory, I believe, -was finally disposed of by the six decisive arguments I brought -forward against it in 1891 (reprinted in ChE § 39). But after what -has been said above on the Scandinavian influence, I incline to think -that E. Classen is right in thinking that the Danes count for something -in bringing about the final victory of <i>-s</i> over its competitor -<i>-n</i>, for the Danes had no plural in <i>-n</i>, and <i>-s</i> reminded them of -their own <i>-r</i> (<cite>Mod. Language Rev.</cite> 14. 94; cf. also <i>-s</i> in the third -person of verbs, Scand. <i>-r</i>). Apart from this particular point, -it is quite natural that the Scandinavians should have exercised -a general levelling influence on the English language, as many -niceties of grammar would easily be sacrificed where mutual intelligibility -was so largely brought about by the common vocabulary. -Accordingly, we find that in the regions in which the Danish -settlements were thickest the wearing away of grammatical forms -was a couple of centuries in advance of the same process in the -southern parts of the country.</p> - -<p>Derivative endings certainly belong to the ‘grammatical -apparatus’ of a language; yet many such endings have been -taken over into another language as parts of borrowed words -and have then been freely combined with native speech-material. -The phenomenon is extremely frequent in English, where we have, -for instance, the Romanic endings <i>-ess</i> (<i>shepherdess</i>, <i>seeress</i>), <i>-ment</i> -(<i>endearment</i>, <i>bewilderment</i>), <i>-age</i> (<i>mileage</i>, <i>cleavage</i>, <i>shortage</i>), <i>-ance</i> -(<i>hindrance</i>, <i>forbearance</i>) and many more. In Danish and German -the number of similar instances is much more restricted, yet we -have, for instance, recent words in <i>-isme</i>, <i>-ismus</i> and <i>-ianer</i>; cf. -also older words like <i>bageri</i>, <i>bäckerei</i>, etc. It is the same with prefixes: -English has formed many words with <i>de-</i>, <i>co-</i>, <i>inter-</i>, <i>pre-</i>, -<i>anti-</i> and other classical prefixes: <i>de-anglicize</i>, <i>co-godfather</i>, <i>inter-marriage</i>, -<i>at pre-war prices</i>, <i>anti-slavery</i>, etc. (quotations in my -GS § 124; cf. MEG ii. 14. 66). <i>Ex-</i> has established itself in many -languages: <i>ex-king</i>, <i>ex-roi</i>, <i>ex-konge</i>, <i>ex-könig</i>, etc. In Danish -the prefix <i>be-</i>, borrowed from German, is used very extensively -with native words: <i lang="da" xml:lang="da">bebrejde</i>, <i lang="da" xml:lang="da">bebo</i>, <i lang="da" xml:lang="da">bebygge</i>, and this is not the only -German prefix that is productive in the Scandinavian languages.</p> - -<p>With regard to syntax, very little can be said except in a -general way: languages certainly do influence each other syntactically, -and those who know a foreign language only imperfectly -are apt to transfer to it methods of construction from their<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_215" id="Page_215">[215]</a></span> -own tongue. Many instances of this have been collected by -Schuchardt, SlD. But it is doubtful whether these syntactical -influences have the same <em>permanent</em> effects on any language as those -exerted on one’s own language by the habit of translating foreign -works into it: in this purely literary way a great many idioms -and turns of phrases have been introduced into English, German -and the Scandinavian languages from French and Latin, and into -Danish and Swedish from German. The accusative and infinitive -construction, which had only a very restricted use in Old English, -has very considerably extended its domain through Latin influence, -and the so-called ‘absolute construction’ (in my own grammatical -terminology called ‘duplex subjunct’) seems to be entirely due to -imitation of Latin syntax. In the Balkan tongues there are some -interesting instances of syntactical agreement between various -languages, which must be due to oral influence through the necessity -imposed on border peoples of passing continually from one -language to another: the infinitive has disappeared from Greek, -Rumanian and Albanian, and the definite article is placed after -the substantive in Rumanian, Albanian and Bulgarian.</p> - - -<h4>XI.—§ 13. Translation-loans.</h4> - -<p>Besides direct borrowings we have also indirect borrowings or -‘translation loan-words,’ words modelled more or less closely on -foreign ones, though consisting of native speech-material. I take -some examples from the very full and able paper “<span lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Notes sur les -Calques Linguistiques</span>” contributed by Kr. Sandfeld to the <cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Festschrift -Vilh. Thomsen</cite>, 1912: <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">ædificatio</i>: G. <span lang="de" xml:lang="de">erbauung</span>, Dan. -<span lang="da" xml:lang="da">opbyggelse</span>; <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">æquilibrium</i>: G. <span lang="de" xml:lang="de">gleichgewicht</span>, Dan. <span lang="da" xml:lang="da">ligevægt</span>; <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">beneficium</i>: -G. <span lang="de" xml:lang="de">wohltat</span>, Dan. <span lang="da" xml:lang="da">velgerning</span>; <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">conscientia</i>: Goth. miþwissi, -G. <span lang="de" xml:lang="de">gewissen</span>, Dan. <span lang="da" xml:lang="da">samvittighed</span>, Swed. <span lang="sv" xml:lang="sv">samvete</span>, Russ. soznanie; -<i lang="la" xml:lang="la">omnipotens</i>: E. almighty, G. <span lang="de" xml:lang="de">allmächtig</span>, Dan. <span lang="da" xml:lang="da">almægtig</span>; <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">arrière-pensée</i>: -<span lang="de" xml:lang="de">hintergedanke</span>, <span lang="da" xml:lang="da">bagtanke</span>; <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bien-être</i>: <span lang="de" xml:lang="de">wohlsein</span>, <span lang="da" xml:lang="da">velvære</span>; -<i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">exposition</i>: austellung, <span lang="da" xml:lang="da">udstilling</span>; etc. Sandfeld gives many -more examples, and as he has in most instances been able to give -also corresponding words from various Slavonic languages as well -as from Magyar, Finnic, etc., he rightly concludes that his collections -serve to throw light on that community in thought and expression -which Bally has well termed “<span lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">la mentalité européenne</span>.” -(But it will be seen that English differs from most European languages -in having a much greater propensity to swallowing foreign -words raw, as it were, than to translating them.)</p> - - -<div class="chapter"> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_216" id="Page_216">[216]</a></span></p> - - - - -<h3 class="nobreak"><a name="CHAPTER_XII" id="CHAPTER_XII">CHAPTER XII</a><br /> - -<span class="larger">PIDGIN AND CONGENERS</span></h3> -</div> - -<div class="blockquot chaptersummary"> - -<p>§ 1. Beach-la-Mar. § 2. Grammar. § 3. Sounds. § 4. Pidgin. § 5. Grammar, -etc. § 6. General Theory. § 7. Mauritius Creole. § 8. Chinook Jargon. -§ 9. Chinook continued. § 10. Makeshift Languages. § 11. -Romanic Languages.</p></div> - - -<h4>XII.—§ 1. Beach-la-Mar.</h4> - -<p>As a first typical example of a whole class of languages now -found in many parts of the world where people of European -civilization have come into contact with men of other races, we -may take the so-called <i>Beach-la-mar</i> (or Beche-le-mar, or Beche -de mer English);<a name="FNanchor_48_48" id="FNanchor_48_48"></a><a href="#Footnote_48_48" class="fnanchor">[48]</a> it is also sometimes called Sandalwood -English. It is spoken and understood all over the Western -Pacific, its spread being largely due to the fact that the practice -of ‘blackbirding’ often brought together on the same plantation -many natives from different islands with mutually incomprehensible -languages, whose only means of communication was -the broken English they had picked up from the whites. And -now the natives learn this language from each other, while -in many places the few Europeans have to learn it from the -islanders. “Thus the native use of Pidgin-English lays down -the rules by which the Europeans let themselves be guided when -learning it. Even Englishmen do not find it quite easy at the -beginning to understand Pidgin-English, and have to learn it -before they are able to speak it properly” (Landtman).</p> -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_217" id="Page_217">[217]</a></span></p> -<p>I shall now try to give some idea of the structure of this -lingo.</p> - -<p>The vocabulary is nearly all English. Even most of the -words which ultimately go back to other languages have been -admitted only because the English with whom the islanders were -thrown into contact had previously adopted them into their own -speech, so that the islanders were justified in believing that they -were really English. This is true of the Spanish or Portuguese -<i>savvy</i>, ‘to know,’ and <i>pickaninny</i>, ‘child’ or ‘little one’ (a -favourite in many languages on account of its symbolic sound; -see Ch. XX § <a href="#XX_8">8</a>), as well as the Amerindian <i>tomahawk</i>, which in the -whole of Australia is the usual word for a small axe. And if we -find in Beach-la-mar the two Maori words <i>tapu</i> or <i>taboo</i> and -<i>kai</i>, or more often <i>kaikai</i>, ‘to eat’ or ‘food,’ they have probably -got into the language through English—we know that both are -very extensively used in Australia, while the former is known all -over the civilized world. <i>Likkilik</i> or <i>liklik</i>, ‘small, almost,’ is said -to be from a Polynesian word <i>liki</i>, but may be really a perversion -of Engl. <i>little</i>. Landtman gives a few words from unknown -languages used by the Kiwais, though not derived from their -own language. The rest of the words found in my sources are -English, though not always pure English, in so far as their -signification is often curiously distorted.</p> - -<p><i>Nusipepa</i> means ‘a letter, any written or printed document,’ -<i>mary</i> is the general term for ‘woman’ (cf. above, p. <a href="#Page_118">118</a>), <i>pisupo</i> -(peasoup) for all foreign foods which are preserved in tins; -<i>squareface</i>, the sailor’s name for a square gin-bottle, is extended -to all forms of glassware, no matter what the shape. One of -the earliest seafarers is said to have left a bull and a cow on one -of the islands and to have mentioned these two words together; -the natives took them as one word, and now <i>bullamacow</i> or <i>pulumakau</i> -means ‘cattle, beef, also tinned beef’; <i>pulomokau</i> is -now given as a native word in a dictionary of the Fijian -language.<a name="FNanchor_49_49" id="FNanchor_49_49"></a><a href="#Footnote_49_49" class="fnanchor">[49]</a> <i>Bulopenn</i>, which means ‘ornament,’ is said to be -nothing but the English <i>blue paint</i>. All this shows the purely -accidental character of many of the linguistic acquisitions of -the Polynesians.</p> - -<p>As the vocabulary is extremely limited, composite expressions -are sometimes resorted to in order to express ideas for -which we have simple words, and not unfrequently the devices -used appear to us very clumsy or even comical. A piano is -called ‘big fellow bokus (box) you fight him he cry,’ and a<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_218" id="Page_218">[218]</a></span> -concertina ‘little fellow bokus you shove him he cry, you pull -him he cry.’ <i>Woman he got faminil</i> (‘family’) <i>inside</i> means -‘she is with child.’ <i>Inside</i> is also used extensively about mental -states: <i>jump inside</i> ‘be startled,’ <i>inside tell himself</i> ‘to consider,’ -<i>inside bad</i> ‘grieved or sorry,’ <i>feel inside</i> ‘to know,’ <i>feel -another kind inside</i> ‘to change one’s mind.’ <i>My throat he fast</i> -‘I was dumb.’ <i>He took daylight a long time</i> ‘lay awake.’ <i>Bring -fellow belong make open bottle</i> ‘bring me a corkscrew.’ <i>Water -belong stink</i> ‘perfumery.’ The idea of being bald is thus expressed: -<i>grass belong head belong him all he die finish</i>, or with -another variant, <i>coconut belong him grass no stop</i>, for <i>coconut</i> is -taken from English slang in the sense ‘head’ (Schuchardt has -the sentence: <i>You no savvy that fellow white man coconut belong -him no grass?</i>). For ‘feather’ the combination <i>grass belong -pigeon</i> is used, <i>pigeon</i> being a general term for any bird.</p> - -<p>A man who wanted to borrow a saw, the word for which he -had forgotten, said: ‘You give me brother belong tomahawk, -he come he go.’ A servant who had been to Queensland, where -he saw a train, on his return called it ‘steamer he walk about -along bush.’ Natives who watched Landtman when he enclosed -letters in envelopes named the latter ‘house belong letter.’ -Many of these expressions are thus picturesque descriptions made -on the spur of the moment if the proper word is not known.</p> - - -<h4>XII.—§ 2. Grammar.</h4> - -<p>These phrases have already illustrated some points of the -very simple grammar of this lingo. Words have only one form, -and what is in our language expressed by flexional forms is -either left unexpressed or else indicated by auxiliary words. -The plural of nouns is like the singular (though the form <i>men</i> -is found in my texts alongside of <i>man</i>); when necessary, the -plural is indicated by means of a prefixed <i>all</i>: <i>all he talk</i> ‘they -say’ (also <i>him fellow all</i> ‘they’); <i>all man</i> ‘everybody’; a more -indefinite plural is <i>plenty man</i> or <i>full up man</i>. For ‘we’ is -said <i>me two fella</i> or <i>me three fellow</i>, as the case may be; <i>me two -fellow Lagia</i> means ‘I and Lagia.’ If there are more, <i>me -altogether man</i> or <i>me plenty man</i> may be said, though <i>we</i> is also -in use. <i>Fellow</i> (<i>fella</i>) is a much-vexed word; it is required, or -at any rate often used, after most pronouns, thus, <i>that fellow hat</i>, -<i>this fellow knife</i>, <i>me fellow</i>, <i>you fellow</i>, <i>him fellow</i> (not <i>he fellow</i>); -it is found very often after an adjective and seems to be required -to prop up the adjective before the substantive: <i>big fellow -name</i>, <i>big fellow tobacco</i>, <i>another fellow man</i>. In other cases no -<i>fellow</i> is used, and it seems difficult to give definite rules; after<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_219" id="Page_219">[219]</a></span> -a numeral it is frequent: <i>two fellow men</i> (<i>man</i>?), <i>three fellow -bottle</i>. There is a curious employment in <i>ten fellow ten one -fellow</i>, which means 101. It is used adverbially in <i>that man he -cry big fellow</i> ‘he cries loudly.’</p> - -<p>The genitive is expressed by means of <i>belong</i> (or <i>belong-a</i>, -<i>long</i>, <i>along</i>), which also serves for other prepositional relations. -Examples: <i>tail belong him</i>, <i>pappa belong me</i>, <i>wife belong you</i>, -<i>belly belong me walk about too much</i> (I was seasick), <i>me savvee talk -along white man</i>; <i>rope along bush</i> means liana. <i>Missis! man -belong bullamacow him stop</i> (the butcher has come). <i>What for -you wipe hands belong-a you on clothes belong esseppoon?</i> (spoon, -i.e. napkin). Cf. above the expressions for ‘bald.’ <i>Piccaninny -belong banana</i> ‘a young b. plant.’ <i>Belong</i> also naturally means -‘to live in, be a native of’; <i>boy belong island</i>, <i>he belong Burri-burrigan</i>. -The preposition <i>along</i> is used about many local relations -(in, at, on, into, on board). From such combinations as -<i>laugh along</i> (l. at) and <i>he speak along this fella</i> the transition is -easy to cases in which <i>along</i> serves to indicate the indirect -object: <i>he give’m this fella Eve along Adam</i>, and also a kind of -direct object, as in <i>fight alonga him</i>, <i>you gammon along me</i> (deceive, -lie to me), and with the form <i>belong</i>: <i>he puss-puss belong this -fellow</i> (<i>puss-puss</i> orig. a cat, then as a verb to caress, make -love to).</p> - -<p>There is no distinction of gender: <i>that woman he brother belong -me</i> = ‘she is my sister’; <i>he</i> (before the verb) and <i>him</i> (in all -other positions) serve both for he, she and it. There is a -curious use of <i>’m</i>, <i>um</i> or <i>em</i>, in our texts often written <i>him</i>, after -a verb as a ‘vocal sign of warning that an object of the verb is -to follow,’ no matter what that object is.</p> - -<p>Churchill says that “in the adjective comparison is unknown; -the islanders do not know how to think comparatively—at -least, they lack the form of words by which comparison may -be indicated; <i>this big</i>, <i>that small</i> is the nearest they can come -to the expression of the idea that one thing is greater than -another.” But Landtman recognizes <i>more big</i> and also <i>more -better</i>: ‘no good make him that fashion, more better make -him all same.’ The same double comparative I find in another -place, used as a kind of verb meaning ‘ought to, had better’: -<i>more better you come out</i>. <i>Too</i> simply means ‘much’: <i>he savvy -too much</i> ‘he knows much’ (praise, no blame), <i>he too much talk</i>. -A synonym is <i>plenty too much</i>. Schuchardt gives the explanation -of this trait: “The white man was the teacher of the black -man, who imitated his manner of speaking. But the former -would constantly use the strongest expressions and exaggerate -in a manner that he would only occasionally resort to in speaking<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_220" id="Page_220">[220]</a></span> -to his own countrymen. He did not say, ‘You are very lazy,’ -but ‘You are too lazy,’ and this will account for the fact that -‘very’ is called <i>too much</i> in Beach-la-mar as well as <i>tumussi</i> -in the Negro-English of Surinam” (<cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Spr. der Saramakkaneger</cite>, -p. iv).</p> - -<p>Verbs have no tense-forms; when required, a future may -be indicated by means of <i>by and by</i>: <i>brother belong-a-me by -and by he dead</i> (my br. is dying), <i>bymby all men laugh along that -boy</i>; <i>he small now, bymbye he big</i>. It may be qualified by -additions like <i>bymby one time</i>, <i>bymby little bit</i>, <i>bymby big bit</i>, and -may be used also of the ‘postpreterit’ (of futurity relative to a -past time): <i>by and by boy belong island he speak</i>. Another way of -expressing the future is seen in <i>that woman he close up born (!) -him piccaninny</i> ‘that woman will shortly give birth to a child.’ -The usual sign of the perfect is <i>been</i>, the only idiomatic form of -the verb to be: <i>you been take me along three year</i>; <i>I been look -round before</i>. But <i>finish</i> may also be used: <i>me look him finish</i> -(I have seen him), <i>he kaikai all finish</i> (he has eaten it all up).</p> - -<p>Where we should expect forms of the verb ‘to be,’ there is -either no verb or else <i>stop</i> is used: <i>no water stop</i> (there is no -water), <i>rain he stop</i> (it rains), <i>two white men stop Matupi</i> (live in), -<i>other day plenty money he stop</i> (... I had ...). For ‘have’ -they say <i>got</i>. <i>My belly no got kaikai</i> (I am hungry), <i>he got good -hand</i> (is skilful).</p> - - -<h4>XII.—§ 3. Sounds.</h4> - -<p>About the phonetic structure of Beach-la-mar I have very -little information; as a rule the words in my sources are spelt -in the usual English way. Churchill speaks in rather vague terms -about difficulties which the islanders experience in imitating the -English sounds, and especially groups of consonants: “Any -English word which on experiment proved impracticable to the -islanders has undergone alteration to bring it within the scope -of their familiar range of sounds or has been rejected for some -facile synonym.” Thus, according to him, the conjunction <i>if</i> -could not be used on account of the <i>f</i>, and that is the reason -for the constant use of <i>suppose</i> (<i>s’pose</i>, <i>pose</i>, <i>posum</i> = s’pose -him)—but it may be allowable to doubt this, for as a matter of -fact <i>f</i> occurs very frequently in the language—for instance, in the -well-worn words <i>fellow</i> and <i>finish</i>. <i>Suppose</i> probably is preferred -to <i>if</i> because it is fuller in form and less abstract, and therefore -easier to handle, while the islanders have many occasions -to hear it in other combinations than those in which it is an -equivalent of the conjunction.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_221" id="Page_221">[221]</a></span></p> - -<p>Landtman says that with the exception of a few sounds -(<i>j</i>, <i>ch</i>, and <i>th</i> as in <i>nothing</i>) the Kiwai Papuans have little difficulty -in pronouncing English words.</p> - -<p>Schuchardt gives a little more information about pronunciation, -and instances <i>esterrong</i> = <i>strong</i>, <i>esseppoon</i> = <i>spoon</i>, <i>essaucepen</i> -= <i>saucepan</i>, <i>pellate</i> = <i>plate</i>, <i>coverra</i> = <i>cover</i>, <i>millit</i> = <i>milk</i>, -<i>bock-kiss</i> = <i>box</i> (in Churchill <i>bokus</i>, <i>bokkis</i>) as mutilations due -to the native speech habits. He also gives the following letter -from a native of the New Hebrides, communicated to him by -R. H. Codrington; it shows many sound substitutions:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p><i>Misi Kamesi Arelu Jou no kamu ruki mi Mi no ruki iou Jou -ruku Mai Poti i ko Mae tete Vakaromala mi raiki i tiripi Ausi -parogi iou i rukauti Mai Poti mi nomoa kaikai mi angikele nau -Poti mani Mae i kivi iou Jamu Vari koti iou kivi tamu te pako -paraogi mi i penesi nomoa te Pako.</i></p> - -<p> -<i>Oloraiti Ta</i>, <span class="smcap">Mataso</span>.<br /> -</p></div> - -<p>This means as much as:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>Mr. Comins, (How) are you? You no come look me; me -no look you; you look my boat he go Mae to-day. Vakaromala -me like he sleep house belong you, he look out my boat, me no -more kaikai, me hungry now, boat man Mae he give you yam -very good, you give some tobacco belong (here = to) me, he -finish, no more tobacco.</p> - -<p> -All right Ta, <span class="smcap">Mataso</span>.<br /> -</p></div> - -<p>There are evidently many degrees of approximation to the -true English sounds.</p> - -<p>This letter also shows the characteristic tendency to add a -vowel, generally a short <i>i</i>, to words ending in consonants. This -is old, for I find in Defoe’s <cite>Farther Adventures of Robinson Crusoe</cite> -(1719, p. 211): “All those natives, as also those of Africa, when -they learn English, they always add two E’s at the end of the -words where we use one, and make the accent upon them, as -<i>makee</i>, <i>takee</i> and the like.” (Note the un-phonetic expressions!) -Landtman, besides this addition, as in <i>belongey</i>, also mentions -a more enigmatic one of <i>lo</i> to words ending in vowels, as <i>clylo</i> for -‘cry’ (cf. below on Pidgin).</p> - - -<h4>XII.—§ 4. Pidgin.</h4> - -<p>I now turn to Pidgin-English. As is well known, this is the -name of the jargon which is very extensively used in China, and -to some extent also in Japan and California, as a means of communication -between English-speaking people and the yellow<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_222" id="Page_222">[222]</a></span> -population. The name is derived from the Chinese distortion -of the Engl. word <i>business</i>. Unfortunately, the sources available -for Pidgin-English as actually spoken in the East nowadays are -neither so full nor so exact as those for Beach-la-mar, and the -following sketch, therefore, is not quite satisfactory.<a name="FNanchor_50_50" id="FNanchor_50_50"></a><a href="#Footnote_50_50" class="fnanchor">[50]</a></p> - -<p>Pidgin-English must have developed pretty soon after the -first beginning of commercial relations between the English and -Chinese. In <cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Engl. Studien</cite>, 44. 298, Prick van Wely has printed -some passages of C. F. Noble’s <cite>Voyage to the East Indies in 1747 -and 1748</cite>, in which the Chinese are represented as talking to the -writer in a “broken and mixed dialect of English and Portuguese,” -the specimens given corresponding pretty closely to the -Pidgin of our own days. Thus, <i>he no cari Chinaman’s Joss, hap -oter Joss</i>, which is rendered, ‘that man does not worship our -god, but has another god’; the Chinese are said to be unable to -pronounce <i>r</i> and to use the word <i>chin-chin</i> for compliments and -<i>pickenini</i> for ‘small.’</p> - -<p>The latter word seems now extinct in Pidgin proper, though -we have met it in Beach-la-mar, but <i>Joss</i> is still very frequent -in Pidgin: it is from Portuguese <i lang="pt" xml:lang="pt">Deus</i>, <i lang="pt" xml:lang="pt">Deos</i> (or Span. <i lang="es" xml:lang="es">Dios</i>): -<i>Joss-house</i> is a temple or church, <i>Joss-pidgin</i> religion, <i>Joss-pidgin -man</i> a clergyman, <i>topside Joss-pidgin man</i> a bishop. <i>Chin-chin</i>, -according to the same source, is from Chinese <i>ts’ing-ts’ing</i>, -Pekingese <i>ch’ing-ch’ing</i>, a term of salutation answering to ‘thank -you, adieu,’ but the English have extended its sphere of application -very considerably, using it as a noun meaning ‘salutation, -compliment,’ and as a verb meaning “to worship (by bowing -and striking the chin), to reverence, adore, implore, to -deprecate anger, to wish one something, invite, ask” (Leland). -The explanation given here within parentheses shows how the -Chinese word has been interpreted by popular etymology, and -no doubt it owes its extensive use partly to its sound, which has -taken the popular fancy. <i>Chin-chin joss</i> means religious worship -of any kind.</p> - -<p>Simpson says: “Many of the words in use are of unknown -origin. In a number of cases the English suppose them to be<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_223" id="Page_223">[223]</a></span> -Chinese, while the Chinese, on the other hand, take them to be -English.” Some of these, however, admit now of explanation, -and not a few of them point to India, where the English have -learnt them and brought them further East. Thus <i>chit</i>, <i>chitty</i>, -‘a letter, an account,’ is Hindustani <i>chiṭṭhī</i>; <i>godown</i> ‘warehouse’ -is an English popular interpretation of Malay <i lang="ms" xml:lang="ms">gadong</i>, -from Tamil <i>giḍangi</i>. <i>Chowchow</i> seems to be real Chinese and to -mean ‘mixed preserves,’ but in Pidgin it has acquired the wider -signification of ‘food, meal, to eat,’ besides having various other -applications: a chowchow cargo is an assorted cargo, a ‘general -shop’ is a chowchow shop. <i>Cumshaw</i> ‘a present’ is Chinese. -But <i>tiffin</i>, which is used all over the East for ‘lunch,’ is really -an English word, properly <i>tiffing</i>, from the slang verb <i>to tiff</i>, to -drink, esp. to drink out of meal-times. In India it was applied -to the meal, and then reintroduced into England and believed -to be a native Indian word.</p> - - -<h4>XII.—§ 5. Grammar, etc.</h4> - -<p>Among points not found in Beach-la-mar I shall mention -the extensive use of <i>piecee</i>, which in accordance with Chinese -grammar is required between a numeral and the noun indicating -what is counted; thus in a Chinaman’s description of a three-masted -screw steamer with two funnels: “Thlee piecee bamboo, -two piecee puff-puff, walk-along inside, no can see” (walk-along -= the engine). <i>Side</i> means any locality: <i>he belongey -China-side now</i> (he is in China), <i>topside</i> above, or high, <i>bottom-side</i> -below, <i>farside</i> beyond, <i>this-side</i> here, <i>allo-side</i> around. In -a similar way <i>time</i> (pronounced <i>tim</i> or <i>teem</i>) is used in <i>that-tim</i> -then, when, <i>what-tim</i> when? <i>one-tim</i> once, only, <i>two-tim</i> twice, -again, <i>nother-tim</i> again.</p> - -<p>In one respect the Chinese sound system is accountable for -a deviation from Beach-la-mar, namely in the substitution -of <i>l</i> for <i>r</i>: <i>loom</i>, <i>all light</i> for ‘room, all right,’ etc., while the -islanders often made the inverse change. But the tendency to -add a vowel after a final consonant is the same: <i>makee</i>, <i>too -muchee</i>, etc. The enigmatic termination <i>lo</i>, which Landtman found -in some words in New Guinea, is also added to some words ending -in vowel sounds in Pidgin, according to Leland, who instances -<i>die-lo</i>, die; in his texts I find the additional examples <i>buy-lo</i>, <i>say-lo</i>, -<i>pay-lo</i>, <i>hear-lo</i>, besides <i>wailo</i>, or <i>wylo</i>, which is probably from <i>away</i>; -it means ‘go away, away with you! go, depart, gone.’ Can it -be the Chinese sign of the past tense <i>la</i>, <i>lao</i>, generalized?</p> - -<p>Among usual expressions must be mentioned <i>number one</i> -(<i>numpa one</i>) ‘first-class, excellent,’ <i>catchee</i> ‘get, possess, hold,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_224" id="Page_224">[224]</a></span> -bring,’ etc., <i>ploper</i> (<i>plopa</i>) ‘proper, good, nice, correct’: <i>you -belong ploper?</i> ‘are you well?’</p> - -<p>Another word which was not in use among the South Sea -islanders, namely <i>have</i>, in the form <i>hab</i> or <i>hap</i> is often used in -Pidgin, even to form the perfect. <i>Belong</i> (<i>belongy</i>) is nearly -as frequent as in Beach-la-mar, but is used in a different way: -‘My belongy Consoo boy,’ ‘I am the Consul’s servant.’ ‘You -belong clever inside,’ ‘you are intelligent.’ The usual way of -asking the price of something is ‘how much belong?’</p> - - -<h4>XII.—§ 6. General Theory.</h4> - -<p>Lingos of the same type as Beach-la-mar and Pidgin-English -are found in other parts of the world where whites and natives -meet and have to find some medium of communication. Thus -a Danish doctor living in Belgian Congo sends me a few specimens -of the ‘Pidgin’ spoken there: to indicate that his master -has received many letters from home, the ‘boy’ will say, -“Massa catch plenty mammy-book” (<i>mammy</i> meaning ‘woman, -wife’). <i>Breeze</i> stands for air in general; if the boy wants to -say that he has pumped up the bicycle tyres, he will say, -“Plenty breeze live for inside,” <i>live</i>, being here the general term -for ‘to be’ (Beach-l. <i>stop</i>); ‘is your master in?’ becomes -‘Massa live?’ and the answer is ‘he no live’ or ‘he live for -hup’ (i.e. he is upstairs). If a man has a stomach-ache he will -say ‘he hurt me for belly plenty too much’—<i>too much</i> is thus -used exactly as in Beach-la-mar and Chinese Pidgin. The -similarity of all these jargons, in spite of unavoidable smaller -differences, is in fact very striking indeed.</p> - -<p>It may be time now to draw the moral of all this. And first -I want to point out that these languages are not ‘mixed -languages’ in the proper sense of that term. Churchill is not -right when he says that Beach-la-mar “gathered material from -every source, it fused them all.” As a matter of fact, it is -English, and nothing but English, with very few admixtures, -and all of these are such words as had previously been -adopted into the English speech of those classes of the population, -sailors, etc., with whom the natives came into contact: -they were therefore justified in their belief that these words -formed part of the English tongue and that what they learned -themselves was real English. The natives really adhere to -Windisch’s rule about the adoption of loan-words (above, XI § <a href="#XI_10">10</a>). -If there are more Chinese words in Pidgin than there are Polynesian -ones in Beach-la-mar, this is a natural consequence -of the fact that the Chinese civilization ranked incomparably<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_225" id="Page_225">[225]</a></span> -much higher than the Polynesian, and that therefore the -English living in China would adopt these words into their own -speech. Still, their number is not very large. And we have -seen that there are some words which the Easterners must -naturally suppose to be English, while the English think that -they belong to the vernacular, and in using them each party -is thus under the delusion that he is rendering a service to the -other.</p> - -<p>This leads me to my second point: those deviations from -correct English, those corruptions of pronunciation and those -simplifications of grammar, which have formed the object of -this short sketch, are due just as much to the English as to the -Easterners, and in many points they began with the former -rather than with the latter (cf. Schuchardt, <i>Auf anlass des -Volapüks</i>, 1888, 8; KS 4. 35, SlD 36; ESt 15. 292). From -Schuchardt I take the following quotation: “The usual question -on reaching the portico of an Indian bungalow is, <i>Can missus see?</i>—it -being a popular superstition amongst the Europeans that -to enable a native to understand English he must be addressed -as if he were deaf, and in the most infantile language.” This -tendency to meet the ‘inferior races’ half-way in order to facilitate -matters for them is by Churchill called “the one supreme -axiom of international philology: the proper way to make a -foreigner understand what you would say is to use broken -English. He speaks it himself, therefore give him what he uses.” -We recognize here the same mistaken notion that we have seen -above in the language of the nursery, where mothers and others -will talk a curious sort of mangled English which is believed to -represent real babytalk, though it has many traits which are -purely conventional. In both cases these more or less artificial -perversions are thought to be an aid to those who have not yet -mastered the intricacies of the language in question, though the -ultimate result is at best a retardation of the perfect acquisition -of correct speech.</p> - -<p>My view, then, is that Beach-la-mar as well as Pidgin is -English, only English learnt imperfectly, in consequence partly -of the difficulties always inherent in learning a totally different -language, partly of the obstacles put in the way of learning by -the linguistic behaviour of the English-speaking people themselves. -The analogy of its imperfections with those of a baby’s -speech in the first period is striking, and includes errors of pronunciation, -extreme simplification of grammar, scantiness of -vocabulary, even to such peculiarities as that the word <i>too</i> is -apprehended in the sense of ‘very much,’ and such phrases as -<i>you better go</i>, etc.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_226" id="Page_226">[226]</a></span></p> - - -<h4>XII.—§ 7. Mauritius Creole.</h4> - -<p>The view here advanced on the character of these ‘Pidgin’ -languages is corroborated when we see that other languages under -similar circumstances have been treated in exactly the same way -as English. With regard to French in the island of Mauritius, -formerly Ile de France, we are fortunate in possessing an excellent -treatment of the subject by M. C. Baissac (<cite lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Étude sur le -Patois Créole Mauricien</cite>, Nancy, 1880; cf. the same writer’s <cite lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Le -Folk-lore de l’Ile-Maurice</cite>, Paris, 1888, <span lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Les littératures populaires, -tome xxvii</span>). The island was uninhabited when the French -occupied it in 1715; a great many slaves were imported from -Madagascar, and as a means of intercourse between them and -their French masters a French Creole language sprang up, which -has survived the English conquest (1810) and the subsequent -wholesale introduction of coolies from India and elsewhere. The -paramount element in the vocabulary is French; one may read -many pages in Baissac’s texts without coming across any foreign -words, apart from the names of some indigenous animals and -plants. In the phonetic structure there are a few all-pervading -traits: the front-round vowels are replaced by the corresponding -unrounded vowels or in a few cases by [u], and instead of [ʃ, ʒ] -we find [s, z]; thus <span lang="fr" xml:lang="fr"><i>éré</i> heureux</span>, <span lang="fr" xml:lang="fr"><i>éne plime</i> une plume</span>, <span lang="fr" xml:lang="fr"><i>sakéne</i> -chacun(e), <i>zize</i> juge, <i>zunu</i> genou, <i>suval</i> cheval</span>: I replace Baissac’s -notation, which is modelled on the French spelling, by a more -phonetic one according to his own indications; but I keep his -final <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">e muet</i>.</p> - -<p>The grammar of this language is as simple as possible. Substantives -have the same form for the two numbers: <span lang="fr" xml:lang="fr"><i>dé suval</i> -deux chevaux</span>. There is no definite article. The adjective is -invariable, thus also <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">sa</i> for <span lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">ce, cet, cette, ces, ceci, cela, celui, -celle, ceux, celles</span>. <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Mo</i> before a verb is ‘I,’ before a substantive -it is possessive: <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">mo koné</i> I know, <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">mo lakaze</i> my house; in the -same way <i>to</i> is you and your, but in the third person a distinction -is made, for <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">li</i> is he or she, but his or her is <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">so</i>, and -here we have even a plural, <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">zaute</i> from ‘les autres,’ which form -is also used as a plural of the second person: <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">mo va alle av zaut</i>, -I shall go with you.</p> - -<p>The genitive is expressed by word-order without any preposition: -<i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">lakase so papa</i> his father’s house; also with <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">so</i> before the -nominative: <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">so piti ppa Azor</i> old Azor’s child.</p> - -<p>The form in which the French words have been taken over -presents some curious features, and in some cases illustrates the -difficulty the blacks felt in separating the words which they -heard in the French utterance as one continuous stream of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_227" id="Page_227">[227]</a></span> -sounds. There is evidently a disinclination to begin a word with -a vowel, and sometimes an initial vowel is left out, as <span lang="fr" xml:lang="fr"><i>bitation</i> -habitation, <i>tranzé</i> étranger</span>, but in other cases <i>z</i> is taken from -the French plural article: <span lang="fr" xml:lang="fr"><i>zozo</i> oiseau, <i>zistoire</i>, <i>zenfan</i>, <i>zimaze</i> -image, <i>zalfan</i> éléphant, <i>zanimo</i> animal</span>, or <i>n</i> from the French -indefinite article: <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">name</i> ghost, <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">nabi</i> (or <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">zabi</i>) habit. In many -cases the whole French article is taken as an integral part of the -word, as <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">lérat</i> rat, <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">léroi</i>, <span lang="fr" xml:lang="fr"><i>licien</i> chien</span>, <span lang="fr" xml:lang="fr"><i>latabe</i> table, <i>lére</i> heure</span> (often -as a conjunction ‘when’); thus also with the plural article -<i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">lizié</i> from <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">les yeux</i>, but without the plural signification: <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">éne -lizié</i> an eye. Similarly <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">éne lazoie</i> a goose. Words that are often -used in French with the so-called partitive article keep this; thus -<i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">disel</i> salt, <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">divin</i> wine, <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">duri</i> rice, <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">éne dipin</i> a loaf; here also we -meet with one word from the French plural: <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">éne dizéf</i> an egg, -from <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">des œufs</i>. The French mass-word with the partitive article -<i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">du monde</i> has become <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">dimunde</i> or <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">dumune</i>, and as it means -‘people’ and no distinction is made between plural and singular, -it is used also for ‘person’: <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">éne vié dimunde</i> an old man.</p> - -<p>Verbs have only one form, generally from the French infinitive -or past participle, which in most cases would fall together -(<i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">manzé</i> = <span lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">manger, mangé</span>; <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">kuri</i> = <span lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">courir, couru</span>); this serves -for all persons in both numbers and all moods. But tenses are -indicated by means of auxiliary words: <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">va</i> for the future, <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">té</i> -(from <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">été</i>) for the ordinary past, and <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">fine</i> for the perfect: <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">mo -manzé</i> I eat, <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">mo va manzé</i> I shall eat, <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">mo té manzé</i> I ate, <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">mo -fine manzé</i> I have eaten, <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">mo fine fini</i> I have finished. Further, -there is a curious use of <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">aprè</i> to express what in English are called -the progressive or expanded tenses: <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">mo aprè manzé</i> I am eating, -<i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">mo té aprè manzé</i> I was eating, and of <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">pour</i> to express the immediate -future: <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">mo pour manzé</i> I am going to eat, and finally an -immediate past may be expressed by <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">fék</i>: <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">mo fék manzé</i> I have -just been eating (je ne fais que de manger). As these may be -combined in various ways (<i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">mo va fine manzé</i> I shall have eaten, -even <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">mo té va fék manzé</i> I should have eaten a moment ago, etc.), -the language has really succeeded in building up a very fine and -rich verbal system with the simplest possible means and with -perfect regularity.</p> - -<p>The French separate negatives have been combined into one word -each: <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">napa</i> not (there is not), <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">narien</i> nothing, and similarly <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">nék</i> only.</p> - -<p>In many cases the same form is used for a substantive or -adjective and for a verb: <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">mo soif</i>, <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">mo faim</i> I am thirsty and -hungry; <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">li content so madame</i> he is fond of his wife.</p> - -<p><i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Côte</i> (or <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">à côte</i>) is a preposition ‘by the side of, near,’ but -also means ‘where’: <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">la case àcote li resté</i> ‘the house in which he -lives’; cf. Pidgin <i>side</i>.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_228" id="Page_228">[228]</a></span></p> - -<p>In all this, as will easily be seen, there is very little French -grammar; this will be especially evident when we compare the -French verbal system with its many intricacies: difference -according to person, number, tense and mood with their endings, -changes of root-vowels and stress-place, etc., with the unchanged -verbal root and the invariable auxiliary syllables of -the Creole. But there is really as little in the Creole dialect of -Malagasy grammar, as I have ascertained by looking through -G. W. Parker’s <cite>Grammar</cite> (London, 1883): both nations in forming -this means of communication have, as it were, stripped themselves -of all their previous grammatical habits and have spoken -as if their minds were just as innocent of grammar as those of -very small babies, whether French or Malagasy. Thus, and -thus only, can it be explained that the grammar of this variety -of French is for all practical purposes identical with the grammar -of those two varieties of English which we have previously examined -in this chapter.</p> - -<p>No one can read Baissac’s collection of folk-tales from -Mauritius without being often struck with the felicity and even -force of this language, in spite of its inevitable <i>naïveté</i> and of the -childlike simplicity of its constructions. If it were left to itself -it might develop into a really fine idiom without abandoning -any of its characteristic traits. But as it is, it seems to be constantly -changing through the influence of real French, which is -more and more taught to and imitated by the islanders, and the -day may come when most of the features described in this rapid -sketch will have given place to something which is less original, -but will be more readily understood by Parisian globe-trotters -who may happen to visit the distant island.</p> - - -<h4>XII.—§ 8. Chinook Jargon.</h4> - -<p>The view here advanced may be further put to the test if -we examine a totally different language developed in another -part of the world, viz. in Oregon. I give its history in an -abridged form from Hale.<a name="FNanchor_51_51" id="FNanchor_51_51"></a><a href="#Footnote_51_51" class="fnanchor">[51]</a> When the first British and American -trading ships appeared on the north-west coast of America, towards -the end of the eighteenth century, they found a great number of -distinct languages, the Nootka, Nisqually, Chinook, Chihailish and<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_229" id="Page_229">[229]</a></span> -others, all of them harsh in pronunciation, complex in structure, -and each spoken over a very limited space. The traders learnt -a few Nootka words and the Indians a few English words. -Afterwards the traders began to frequent the Columbia River, -and naturally attempted to communicate with the natives there -by means of the words which they had found intelligible at -Nootka. The Chinooks soon acquired these words, both Nootka -and English. When later the white traders made permanent -establishments in Oregon, a real language was required; and -it was formed by drawing upon the Chinook for such words as -were requisite, numerals, pronouns, and some adverbs and other -words. Thus enriched, ‘the Jargon,’ as it now began to be -styled, became of great service as a means of general intercourse. -Now, French Canadians in the service of the fur companies were -brought more closely into contact with the Indians, hunted with -them, and lived with them on terms of familiarity. The consequence -was that several French words were added to the slender -stock of the Jargon, including the names of various articles of -food and clothing, implements, several names of the parts of the -body, and the verbs to run, sing and dance, also one conjunction, -<i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">puis</i>, reduced to <i>pi</i>.</p> - -<p>“The origin of some of the words is rather whimsical. The -Americans, British and French are distinguished by the terms -<i>Boston</i>, <i>Kinchotsh</i> (King George), and <i>pasaiuks</i>, which is presumed -to be the word <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Français</i> (as neither <i>f</i>, <i>r</i> nor the nasal <i>n</i> can be -pronounced by the Indians) with the Chinook plural termination -<i>uks</i> added.... ‘Foolish’ is expressed by <i>pelton</i> or <i>pilton</i>, derived -from the name of a deranged person, one Archibald Pelton, whom -the Indians saw at Astoria; his strange appearance and actions -made such an impression upon them, that thenceforward anyone -behaving in an absurd or irrational manner” was termed <i>pelton</i>.</p> - -<p>The phonetic structure is very simple, and contains no sound -or combination that is not easy to Englishmen and Frenchmen -as well as to Indians of at least a dozen tribes. The numerous -harsh Indian velars either disappear entirely or are softened to <i>h</i> -and <i>k</i>. On the other hand, the <i>d</i>, <i>f</i>, <i>r</i>, <i>v</i>, <i>z</i> of the English and -French become in the mouth of a Chinook <i>t</i>, <i>p</i>, <i>l</i>, <i>w</i>, <i>s</i>. Examples:</p> - - -<div class="center"> -<table class="left" border="0" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" summary=""> -<tr><td>Chinook:</td><td><i>thliakso</i></td><td><i>yakso</i></td><td>hair</td></tr> -<tr><td></td><td><i>etsghot</i> </td><td><i>itshut</i> </td><td>black bear</td></tr> -<tr><td></td><td><i>tkalaitanam</i> </td><td><i>kalaitan</i> </td><td>arrow, shot, bullet</td></tr> -<tr><td></td><td><i>ntshaika</i> </td><td> <i>nesaika</i> </td><td> we</td></tr> -<tr><td></td><td><i>mshaika</i> </td><td><i>mesaika</i> </td><td> we</td></tr> -<tr><td></td><td><i>thlaitshka</i> </td><td> <i>klaska</i> (<i>tlaska</i>) </td><td> they</td></tr> -<tr><td><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_230" id="Page_230">[230]</a></span></td><td><i>tkhlon</i></td><td><i>klon</i> (<i>tlun</i>) </td><td> three</td></tr> -<tr><td>English:</td><td><i>handkerchief</i></td><td><i>hakatshum</i> (<i>kenkeshim</i>)</td><td>handkerchief</td></tr> -<tr><td></td><td><i>cry</i> </td><td><i>klai</i>, <i>kalai</i> (<i>kai</i>) </td><td> cry, mourn</td></tr> -<tr><td></td><td><i>fire</i> </td><td> <i>paia</i> </td><td>fire, cook, ripe</td></tr> -<tr><td></td><td><i>dry</i> </td><td><i>tlai</i>, <i>delai</i> </td><td> dry</td></tr> -<tr><td>French:</td><td><i>courir</i></td><td><i>kuli</i></td><td>run</td></tr> -<tr><td></td><td><i>la bouche</i> </td><td><i>labus</i> (<i>labush</i>) </td><td>mouth</td></tr> -<tr><td></td><td><i>le mouton</i> </td><td><i>lemuto</i> </td><td>sheep</td></tr> -</table></div> - -<p>The forms in parentheses are those of the French glossary -(1853).</p> - -<p>It will be noticed that many of the French words have the -definite article affixed (a trait noticed in many words in the -French Creole dialect of Mauritius). More than half of the words -in Hale’s glossary beginning with <i>l</i> have this origin, thus <i>labutai</i> -bottle, <i>lakloa</i> cross, <i>lamie</i> an old woman (<span lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">la vieille</span>), <i>lapushet</i> fork -(<span lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">la fourchette</span>), <i>latlá</i> noise (faire du train), <i>lidú</i> finger, <i>lejaub</i> (or -<i>diaub</i>, <i>yaub</i>) devil (<span lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">le diable</span>), <i>léma</i> hand, <i>liplét</i> missionary (<span lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">le -prêtre</span>), <i>litá</i> tooth. The plural article is found in <i>lisáp</i> egg (les -œufs)—the same word in which Mauritius French has also -adopted the plural form.</p> - -<p>Some of the meanings of English words are rather curious; -thus, <i>kol</i> besides ‘cold’ means ‘winter,’ and as the years, as with -the old Scandinavians, are reckoned by winters, also ‘year.’ -<i>Sun</i> (<i>son</i>) besides ‘sun’ also means ‘day.’ <i>Spos</i> (often pronounced -<i>pos</i>), as in Beach-la-mar, is a common conjunction, ‘if, -when.’</p> - -<p>The grammar is extremely simple. Nouns are invariable; -the plural generally is not distinguished from the singular; -sometimes <i>haiu</i> (<i>ayo</i>) ‘much, many’ is added by way of emphasis. -The genitive is shown by position only: <i>kahta nem -maika papa?</i> (lit., what name thou father) what is the name of -your father? The adjective precedes the noun, and comparison -is indicated by periphrasis. ‘I am stronger than thou’ -would be <i>weke maika skukum kahkwa naika</i>, lit. ‘not thou -strong as I.’ The superlative is indicated by the adverb <i>haiás</i> -‘great, very’: <i>haiás oliman okuk kanim</i>, that canoe is the -oldest, lit., very old that canoe, or (according to Gibbs) by <i>elip</i> -‘first, before’: <i>elip klosh</i> ‘best.’</p> - -<p>The numerals and pronouns are from the Chinook, but the -latter, at any rate, are very much simplified. Thus the pronoun -for ‘we’ is <i>nesaika</i>, from Chinook <i>ntshaika</i>, which is the exclusive -form, meaning ‘we here,’ not including the person or -persons addressed.</p> - -<p>Like the nouns, the verbs have only one form, the tense being -left to be inferred from the context, or, if strictly necessary,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_231" id="Page_231">[231]</a></span> -being indicated by an adverb. The future, in the sense of -‘about to, ready to,’ may be expressed by <i>tike</i>, which means -properly ‘wish,’ as <i>naika papa tike mimalus</i> (<i>mimelust</i>) my -father is about to die. The verb ‘to be’ is not expressed: -<i>maika pelton</i>, thou art foolish.</p> - -<p>There is a much-used verb <i>mámuk</i>, which means ‘make, do, -work’ and forms causatives, as <i>mamuk chako</i> ‘make to come, -bring,’ <i>mamuk mimalus</i> ‘kill.’ With a noun: <i>mamuk lalam</i> -(Fr. la rame) ‘make oar,’ i.e. ‘to row,’ <i>mamuk pepe</i> (make paper) -‘write,’ <i>mamuk po</i> (make blow) ‘fire a gun.’</p> - -<p>There is only one true preposition, <i>kopa</i>, which is used in -various senses—to, for, at, in, among, about, etc.; but even -this may generally be omitted and the sentence remain intelligible. -The two conjunctions <i>spos</i> and <i>pi</i> have already been -mentioned.</p> - - -<h4>XII.—§ 9. Chinook continued.</h4> - -<p>In this way something is formed that may be used as a -language in spite of the scantiness of its vocabulary. But a -good deal has to be expressed by the tone of the voice, the look -and the gesture of the speaker. “The Indians in general,” -says Hale (p. 18), “are very sparing of their gesticulations. No -languages, probably, require less assistance from this source than -theirs.... We frequently had occasion to observe the sudden -change produced when a party of the natives, who had been -conversing in their own tongue, were joined by a foreigner, with -whom it was necessary to speak in the Jargon. The countenances, -which had before been grave, stolid and inexpressive, -were instantly lighted up with animation; the low, monotonous -tone became lively and modulated; every feature was active; -the head, the arms and the whole body were in motion, and -every look and gesture became instinct with meaning.”</p> - -<p>In British Columbia and in parts of Alaska this language is -the prevailing medium of intercourse between the whites and -the natives, and there Hale thinks that it is likely to live “for -hundreds, and perhaps thousands, of years to come.” The -language has already the beginning of a literature: songs, -mostly composed by women, who sing them to plaintive native -tunes. Hale gives some lyrics and a sermon preached by Mr. -Eells, who has been accustomed for many years to preach to -the Indians in the Jargon and who says that he sometimes even -thinks in this idiom.</p> - -<p>Hale counted the words in this sermon, and found that to -express the whole of its “historic and descriptive details, its<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_232" id="Page_232">[232]</a></span> -arguments and its appeals,” only 97 different words were required, -and not a single grammatical inflexion. Of these words, -65 were from Amerindian languages (46 Chinook, 17 Nootka, -2 Salish), 23 English and 7 French.</p> - -<p>It is very instructive to go through the texts given by Hale -and to compare them with the real Chinook text analysed in -Boas’s <cite>Handbook of American Indian Languages</cite> (Washington, -1911, p. 666 ff.): the contrast could not be stronger between -simplicity carried to the extreme point, on the one hand, and -an infinite complexity and intricacy on the other. But though -it must be admitted that astonishingly much can be expressed -in the Jargon by its very simple and few means, a European -mind, while bewildered in the entangled jumble of the Chinook -language, cannot help missing a great many <i>nuances</i> in the -Jargon, where thoughts are reduced to their simplest formula -and where everything is left out that is not strictly necessary -to the least exacting minds.</p> - - -<h4>XII.—§ 10. Makeshift Languages.</h4> - -<p>To sum up, this Oregon trade language is to be classed -together with Beach-la-mar and Pidgin-English, not perhaps -as ‘bastard’ or ‘mongrel’ languages—such expressions taken -from biology always convey the wrong impression that a -language is an ‘organism’ and had therefore better be avoided—but -rather as makeshift languages or minimum languages, -means of expression which do not serve all the purposes of -ordinary languages, but may be used as substitutes where fuller -and better ones are not available.</p> - -<p>The analogy between this Jargon and the makeshift languages -of the East is closer than might perhaps appear at first blush, -only we must make it clear to ourselves that English is in the -two cases placed in exactly the inverse position. Pidgin and -Beach-la-mar are essentially English learnt imperfectly by the -Easterners, the Oregon Jargon is essentially Chinook learnt imperfectly -by the English. Just as in the East the English not only -suffered but also abetted the yellows in their corruption of the -English language, so also the Amerindians met the English -half-way through simplifying their own speech. If in Polynesia -and China the makeshift language came to contain some Polynesian -and Chinese words, they were those which the English -themselves had borrowed into their own language and which -the yellows therefore must think formed a legitimate part of -the language they wanted to speak; and in the same way the -American Jargon contains such words from the European<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_233" id="Page_233">[233]</a></span> -languages as had been previously adopted by the reds. If the -Jargon embraces so many French terms for the various parts -of the body, one concomitant reason probably is that these -names in the original Chinook language presented special difficulties -through being specialized and determined by possessive -affixes (my foot, for instance, is <i>lekxeps</i>, thy foot <i>tāmēps</i>, its -foot <i>lelaps</i>, our (dual inclusive) feet <i>tetxaps</i>, your (dual) feet -<i>temtaps</i>; I simplify the notation in Boas’s <cite>Handbook</cite>, p. 586), -so that it was incomparably easier to take the French <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">lepi</i> and -use it unchanged in all cases, no matter what the number, and -no matter who the possessor was. The natives, who had learnt -such words from the French, evidently used them to other -whites under the impression that thereby they could make themselves -more readily understood, and the British and American -traders probably imagined them to be real Chinook; anyhow, -their use meant a substantial economy of mental exertion.</p> - -<p>The chief point I want to make, however, is with regard to -grammar. In all these languages, both in the makeshift -English and French of the East and in the makeshift Amerindian -of the North-West, the grammatical structure has been simplified -very much beyond what we find in any of the languages -involved in their making, and simplified to such an extent that -it may be expressed in very few words, and those nearly the -same in all these languages, the chief rule being common to them -all, that substantives, adjectives and verbs remain always unchanged. -The vocabularies are as the poles asunder—in the East -English and French, in America Chinook, etc.—but the morphology -of all these languages is practically identical, because in all of -them it has reached the vanishing-point. This shows conclusively -that the reason of this simplicity is not the Chinese substratum -or the influence of Chinese grammar, as is so often -believed. Pidgin-English cannot be described, as is often done, -as English with Chinese pronunciation and Chinese grammar, -because in that case we should expect Beach-la-mar to be quite -different from it, as the substratum there would be Melanesian, -which in many ways differs from Chinese, and further we should -expect the Mauritius Creole to be French with Malagasy pronunciation -and Malagasy grammar, and on the other hand the -Oregon trade language to be Chinook with English pronunciation -and English grammar—but in none of these cases would this -description tally with the obvious facts. We might just as well -say that the speech of a two-year-old child in England is -English with Chinese grammar, and that of the two-year-old -French child is French modelled on Chinese grammar: the -truth on the contrary, is that in all these seemingly so different<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_234" id="Page_234">[234]</a></span> -cases the same mental factor is at work, namely, imperfect -mastery of a language, which in its initial stage, in the child -with its first language and in the grown-up with a second -language learnt by imperfect methods, leads to a superficial -knowledge of the most indispensable words, with total disregard -of grammar. Often, here and there, this is combined with a -wish to express more than is possible with the means at hand, -and thus generates the attempts to express the inexpressible by -means of those more or less ingenious and more or less comical -devices, with paraphrases and figurative or circuitous designations, -which we have seen first in the chapters on children’s -language and now again in Beach-la-mar and its congeners.</p> - -<p>Exactly the same characteristics are found again in the -<i lang="pt" xml:lang="pt">lingua geral Brazilica</i>, which in large parts of Brazil serves as -the means of communication between the whites and Indians -or negroes and also between Indians of different tribes. It -“possesses neither declension nor conjugation” and “places -words after one another without grammatical flexion, with disregard -of <i>nuances</i> in sentence structure, but in energetic brevity,” -it is “easy of pronunciation,” with many vowels and no hard consonant -groups—in all these respects it differs considerably from the -original Tupí, from which it has been evolved by the Europeans.<a name="FNanchor_52_52" id="FNanchor_52_52"></a><a href="#Footnote_52_52" class="fnanchor">[52]</a></p> - -<p>Finally, I would point the contrast between these makeshift -languages and slang: the former are an outcome of linguistic -poverty; they are born of the necessity and the desire to make -oneself understood where the ordinary idiom of the individual -is of no use, while slang expressions are due to a linguistic exuberance: -the individual creating them knows perfectly well the -ordinary words for the idea he wants to express, but in youthful -playfulness he is not content with what is everybody’s property, -and thus consciously steps outside the routine of everyday -language to produce something that is calculated to excite -merriment or even admiration on the part of his hearers. The -results in both cases may sometimes show related features, for -some of the figurative expressions of Beach-la-mar recall certain -slang words by their bold metaphors, but the motive force in -the two kinds is totally different, and where a comic effect is -produced, in one case it is intentional and in the other unintentional.</p> - - -<h4>XII.—§ 11. Romanic Languages.</h4> - -<p>When Schuchardt began his studies of the various Creole -languages formed in many parts of the world where Europeans<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_235" id="Page_235">[235]</a></span> -speaking various Romanic and other languages had come into -contact with negroes, Polynesians and other races, it was with -the avowed intention of throwing light on the origin of the -Romanic languages from a contact between Latin and the languages -previously spoken in the countries colonized by the -Romans. We may now raise the question whether Beach-la-mar—to -take that as a typical example of the kind of languages -dealt with in this chapter—is likely to develop into a language -which to the English of Great Britain will stand in the same -relation as French or Portuguese to Latin. The answer cannot -be doubtful if we adhere tenaciously to the points of view already -advanced. Development into a separate language would be -imaginable only on condition of a complete, or a nearly complete, -isolation from the language of England (and America)—and -how should that be effected nowadays, with our present -means of transport and communication? If such isolation were -indeed possible, it would also result in the breaking off of communication -between the various islands in which Beach-la-mar -is now spoken, and that would probably entail the speedy extinction -of the language itself in favour of the Polynesian language -of each separate island. On the contrary, what will probably -happen is a development in the opposite direction, by which the -English of the islanders will go on constantly improving so as to -approach correct usage more and more in every respect: better -pronunciation and syntax, more flexional forms and a less scanty -vocabulary—in short, the same development that has already -to a large extent taken place in the English of the coloured population -in the United States. But this means a gradual extinction -of Beach-la-mar as a separate idiom through its complete absorption -in ordinary English (cf. above, p. <a href="#Page_228">228</a>, on conditions at -Mauritius).</p> - -<p>Do these ‘makeshift languages,’ then, throw any light on -the development of the Romanic languages? They may be -compared to the very first initial stage of the Latin language as -spoken by the barbarians, many of whom may be supposed to -have mutilated Latin in very much the same way as the Pacific -islanders do English. But by and by they learnt Latin much -better, and if now the Romanic languages have simplified the -grammatical structure of Latin, this simplification is not to be -placed on the same footing as the formlessness of Beach-la-mar, -for that is complete and has been achieved at one blow: the -islanders have never (i.e. have not yet) learnt the English form-system. -But the inhabitants of France, Spain, etc., did learn -the Latin form system as well as the syntactic use of the forms. -This is seen by the fact that when French and the other languages<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_236" id="Page_236">[236]</a></span> -began to be written down, there remained in them a large quantity -of forms and syntactic applications that agree with Latin but -have since then become extinct: in its oldest written form, -therefore, French is very far from the amorphous condition of -Beach-la-mar: in its nouns it had many survivals of the Latin -case system (gen. pl. corresponding to <i>-orum</i>; an oblique case -different from the nominative and formed in various ways according -to the rules of Latin declensions), in the verbs we find an -intricate system of tenses, moods and persons, based on the -Latin flexions. It is true that these had been already to some -degree simplified, but this must have happened in the same -gradual way as the further simplification that goes on before -our very eyes in the written documents of the following centuries: -the distance from the first to the tenth century must have -been bridged over in very much the same way as the distance -between the tenth and the twentieth century. No cataclysm -such as that through which English has become Beach-la-mar -need on any account be invoked to explain the perfectly natural -change from Latin to Old French and from Old French to -Modern French.</p> - - - -<div class="chapter"> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_237" id="Page_237">[237]</a></span></p> - - - - - -<h3 class="nobreak"><a name="CHAPTER_XIII" id="CHAPTER_XIII">CHAPTER XIII</a><br /> - -<span class="larger">THE WOMAN</span></h3> -</div> - -<div class="blockquot chaptersummary"> - -<p>§ 1. Women’s Languages. § 2. Tabu. § 3. Competing Languages. § 4. Sanskrit -Drama. § 5. Conservatism. § 6. Phonetics and Grammar. -§ 7. Choice of Words. § 8. Vocabulary. § 9. Adverbs. § 10. Periods. -§ 11. General Characteristics.</p></div> - - -<h4>XIII.—§ 1. Women’s Languages.</h4> - -<p>There are tribes in which men and women are said to speak totally -different languages, or at any rate distinct dialects. It will be -worth our while to look at the classical example of this, which is -mentioned in a great many ethnographical and linguistic works, -viz. the Caribs or Caribbeans of the Small Antilles. The first to -mention their distinct sex dialects was the Dominican Breton, who, -in his <cite lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Dictionnaire Caraïbe-français</cite> (1664), says that the Caribbean -chief had exterminated all the natives except the women, who had -retained part of their ancient language. This is repeated in many -subsequent accounts, the fullest and, as it seems, most reliable -of which is that by Rochefort, who spent a long time among the -Caribbeans in the middle of the seventeenth century: see his -<cite lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Histoire naturelle et morale des Iles Antilles</cite> (2e éd., Rotterdam, 1665, -p. 449 ff.). Here he says that “the men have a great many expressions -peculiar to them, which the women understand but never -pronounce themselves. On the other hand, the women have words -and phrases which the men never use, or they would be laughed -to scorn. Thus it happens that in their conversations it often -seems as if the women had another language than the men.... The -savage natives of Dominica say that the reason for this is that when -the Caribs came to occupy the islands these were inhabited by -an Arawak tribe which they exterminated completely, with the -exception of the women, whom they married in order to populate -the country. Now, these women kept their own language and taught -it to their daughters.... But though the boys understand -the speech of their mothers and sisters, they nevertheless follow -their fathers and brothers and conform to their speech from the -age of five or six.... It is asserted that there is some similarity -between the speech of the continental Arawaks and that of the -Carib women. But the Carib men and women on the continent<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_238" id="Page_238">[238]</a></span> -speak the same language, as they have never corrupted their -natural speech by marriage with strange women.”</p> - -<p>This evidently is the account which forms the basis of everything -that has since been written on the subject. But it will be -noticed that Rochefort does not really speak of the speech of the -two sexes as totally distinct languages or dialects, as has often -been maintained, but only of certain differences within the same -language. If we go through the comparatively full and evidently -careful glossary attached to his book, in which he denotes the -words peculiar to the men by the letter H and those of the women -by F, we shall see that it is only for about one-tenth of the vocabulary -that such special words have been indicated to him, though the -matter evidently interested him very much, so that he would make -all possible efforts to elicit them from the natives. In his lists, -words special to one or the other sex are found most frequently -in the names of the various degrees of kinship; thus, ‘my father’ -in the speech of the men in <i>youmáan</i>, in that of the women <i>noukóuchili</i>, -though both in addressing him say <i>bába</i>; ‘my grandfather’ -is <i>itámoulou</i> and <i>nárgouti</i> respectively, and thus also for -maternal uncle, son (elder son, younger son), brother-in-law, wife, -mother, grandmother, daughter, cousin—all of these are different -according as a man or a woman is speaking. It is the same with -the names of some, though far from all, of the different parts of -the body, and with some more or less isolated words, as friend, -enemy, joy, work, war, house, garden, bed, poison, tree, sun, moon, -sea, earth. This list comprises nearly every notion for which -Rochefort indicates separate words, and it will be seen that there -are innumerable ideas for which men and women use the same -word. Further, we see that where there are differences these do -not consist in small deviations, such as different prefixes or suffixes -added to the same root, but in totally distinct roots. Another -point is very important to my mind: judging by the instances -in which plural forms are given in the lists, the words of the two -sexes are inflected in exactly the same way; thus the grammar is -common to both, from which we may infer that we have not -really to do with two distinct languages in the proper sense of -the word.</p> - -<p>Now, some light may probably be thrown on the problem of -this women’s language from a custom mentioned in some of the -old books written by travellers who have visited these islands. -Rochefort himself (p. 497) very briefly says that “the women do -not eat till their husbands have finished their meal,” and Lafitau -(1724) says that women never eat in the company of their husbands -and never mention them by name, but must wait upon them as -their slaves; with this Labat agrees.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_239" id="Page_239">[239]</a></span></p> - - -<h4>XIII.—§ 2. Tabu.</h4> - -<p>The fact that a wife is not allowed to mention the name of -her husband makes one think that we have here simply an instance -of a custom found in various forms and in varying degrees -throughout the world—what is called verbal tabu: under certain -circumstances, at certain times, in certain places, the use of one or -more definite words is interdicted, because it is superstitiously -believed to entail certain evil consequences, such as exasperate -demons and the like. In place of the forbidden words it is therefore -necessary to use some kind of figurative paraphrase, to dig up an -otherwise obsolete term, or to disguise the real word so as to render -it more innocent.</p> - -<p>Now as a matter of fact we find that verbal tabu was a common -practice with the old Caribs: when they were on the war-path -they had a great number of mysterious words which women were -never allowed to learn and which even the young men might not -pronounce before passing certain tests of bravery and patriotism; -these war-words are described as extraordinarily difficult (“<span lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">un -baragoin fort difficile</span>,” Rochefort, p. 450). It is easy to see that -when once a tribe has acquired the habit of using a whole set of -terms under certain frequently recurring circumstances, while -others are at the same time strictly interdicted, this may naturally -lead to so many words being reserved exclusively for one of the -sexes that an observer may be tempted to speak of separate -‘languages’ for the two sexes. There is thus no occasion to believe -in the story of a wholesale extermination of all male inhabitants -by another tribe, though on the other hand it is easy to understand -how such a myth may arise as an explanation of the linguistic -difference between men and women, when it has become strong -enough to attract attention and therefore has to be accounted for.</p> - -<p>In some parts of the world the connexion between a separate -women’s language and tabu is indubitable. Thus among the -Bantu people of Africa. With the Zulus a wife is not allowed to -mention the name of her father-in-law and of his brothers, and if -a similar word or even a similar syllable occurs in the ordinary -language, she must substitute something else of a similar meaning. -In the royal family the difficulty of understanding the women’s -language is further increased by the woman’s being forbidden -to mention the names of her husband, his father and grandfather -as well as his brothers. If one of these names means something -like “the son of the bull,” each of these words has to be avoided, -and all kinds of paraphrases have to be used. According to Kranz -the interdiction holds good not only for meaning elements of the -name, but even for certain sounds entering into them; thus, if<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_240" id="Page_240">[240]</a></span> -the name contains the sound <i>z</i>, <i>amanzi</i> ‘water’ has to be altered -into <i>amandabi</i>. If a woman were to contravene this rule she -would be indicted for sorcery and put to death. The substitutes -thus introduced tend to be adopted by others and to constitute a -real women’s language.</p> - -<p>With the Chiquitos in Bolivia the difference between the grammars -of the two sexes is rather curious (see V. Henry, “<span lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Sur le parler -des hommes et le parler des femmes dans la langue chiquita</span>,” <cite lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Revue -de linguistique</cite>, xii. 305, 1879). Some of Henry’s examples may -be thus summarized: men indicate by the addition of <i>-tii</i> that a -male person is spoken about, while the women do not use this -suffix and thus make no distinction between ‘he’ and ‘she,’ ‘his’ -and ‘her.’ Thus in the men’s speech the following distinctions -would be made:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> -He went to his house: <i>yebotii ti n-ipoostii</i>.<br /> -He went to her house: <i>yebotii ti n-ipoos</i>.<br /> -She went to his house: <i>yebo ti n-ipoostii</i>.<br /> -</div> - -<p>But to express all these different meanings the women would have -only one form, viz.</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> -<i>yebo ti n-ipoos</i>, -</div> - -<p>which in the men’s speech would mean only ‘She went to her -house.’</p> - -<p>To many substantives the men prefix a vowel which the women -do not employ, thus <i>o-petas</i> ‘turtle,’ <i>u-tamokos</i> ‘dog,’ <i>i-pis</i> ‘wood.’ -For some very important notions the sexes use distinct words; thus, -for the names of kinship, ‘my father’ is <i>iyai</i> and <i>išupu</i>, ‘my mother’ -<i>ipaki</i> and <i>ipapa</i>, ‘my brother’ <i>tsaruki</i> and <i>ičibausi</i> respectively.</p> - -<p>Among the languages of California, Yana, according to Dixon -and Kroeber (<cite>The American Anthropologist</cite>, n.s. 5. 15), is the -only language that shows a difference in the words used by men -and women—apart from terms of relationship, where a distinction -according to the sex of the speaker is made among many Californian -tribes as well as in other parts of the world, evidently “because -the relationship itself is to them different, as the sex is different.” -But in Yana the distinction is a linguistic one, and curiously enough, -the few specimens given all present a trait found already in the -Chiquito forms, namely, that the forms spoken by women are shorter -than those of the men, which appear as extensions, generally by -suffixed <i>-(n)a</i>, of the former.</p> - -<p>It is surely needless to multiply instances of these customs, which -are found among many wild tribes; the curious reader may be -referred to Lasch, S. pp. 7-13, and H. Ploss and M. Bartels, <cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Das Weib -in der Natur und Völkerkunde</cite> (9th ed., Leipzig, 1908). The latter<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_241" id="Page_241">[241]</a></span> -says that the Suaheli system is not carried through so as to replace -the ordinary language, but the Suaheli have for every object which -they do not care to mention by its real name a symbolic word understood -by everybody concerned. In especial such symbols are used -by women in their mysteries to denote obscene things. The words -chosen are either ordinary names for innocent things or else taken -from the old language or other Bantu languages, mostly Kiziguha, -for among the Waziguha secret rites play an enormous rôle. Bartels -finally says that with us, too, women have separate names for -everything connected with sexual life, and he thinks that it is the -same feeling of shame that underlies this custom and the interdiction -of pronouncing the names of male relatives. This, however, -does not explain everything, and, as already indicated, superstition -certainly has a large share in this as in other forms of verbal tabu. -See on this the very full account in the third volume of Frazer’s -<cite>The Golden Bough</cite>.</p> - - -<h4>XIII.—§ 3. Competing Languages.</h4> - -<p>A difference between the language spoken by men and that -spoken by women is seen in many countries where two languages -are straggling for supremacy in a peaceful way—thus without any -question of one nation exterminating the other or the male part -of it. Among German and Scandinavian immigrants in America -the men mix much more with the English-speaking population, -and therefore have better opportunities, and also more occasion, to -learn English than their wives, who remain more within doors. -It is exactly the same among the Basques, where the school, the -military service and daily business relations contribute to the -extinction of Basque in favour of French, and where these factors -operate much more strongly on the male than on the female population: -there are families in which the wife talks Basque, while -the husband does not even understand Basque and does not allow -his children to learn it (Bornecque et Mühlen, <cite lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Les Provinces françaises</cite>, -53). Vilhelm Thomsen informs me that the old Livonian -language, which is now nearly extinct, is kept up with the -greatest fidelity by the women, while the men are abandoning it -for Lettish. Albanian women, too, generally know only Albanian, -while the men are more often bilingual.</p> - - -<h4>XIII.—§ 4. Sanskrit Drama.</h4> - -<p>There are very few traces of real sex dialects in our Aryan languages, -though we have the very curious rule in the old Indian -drama that women talk Prakrit (<i>prākrta</i>, the natural or vulgar -language) while men have the privilege of talking Sanskrit (<i>sam<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_242" id="Page_242">[242]</a></span>skrta</i>, -the adorned language). The distinction, however, is not -one of sex really, but of rank, for Sanskrit is the language of gods, -kings, princes, brahmans, ministers, chamberlains, dancing-masters -and other men in superior positions and of a very few women of -special religious importance, while Prakrit is spoken by men of an -inferior class, like shopkeepers, law officers, aldermen, bathmen, -fishermen and policemen, and by nearly all women. The difference -between the two ‘languages’ is one of degree only: they are two -strata of the same language, one higher, more solemn, stiff and -archaic, and another lower, more natural and familiar, and this easy, -or perhaps we should say slipshod, style is the only one recognized -for ordinary women. The difference may not be greater than that -between the language of a judge and that of a costermonger in a -modern novel, or between Juliet’s and her nurse’s expressions -in Shakespeare, and if all women, even those we should call the -‘heroines’ of the plays, use only the lower stratum of speech, the -reason certainly is that the social position of women was so inferior -that they ranked only with men of the lower orders and had no -share in the higher culture which, with the refined language, was -the privilege of a small class of selected men.</p> - - -<h4>XIII.—§ 5. Conservatism.</h4> - -<p>As Prakrit is a ‘younger’ and ‘worn-out’ form of Sanskrit, -the question here naturally arises: What is the general attitude -of the two sexes to those changes that are constantly going on -in languages? Can they be ascribed exclusively or predominantly -to one of the sexes? Or do both equally participate in them? -An answer that is very often given is that as a rule women are more -conservative than men, and that they do nothing more than keep -to the traditional language which they have learnt from their -parents and hand on to their children, while innovations are due -to the initiative of men. Thus Cicero in an often-quoted passage -says that when he hears his mother-in-law Lælia, it is to him as -if he heard Plautus or Nævius, for it is more natural for women to -keep the old language uncorrupted, as they do not hear many -people’s way of speaking and thus retain what they have first learnt -(<i lang="la" xml:lang="la">De oratore</i>, III. 45). This, however, does not hold good in every -respect and in every people. The French engineer, Victor Renault, -who lived for a long time among the Botocudos (in South America) -and compiled vocabularies for two of their tribes, speaks of the -ease with which he could make the savages who accompanied him -invent new words for anything. “One of them called out the -word in a loud voice, as if seized by a sudden idea, and the others -would repeat it amid laughter and excited shouts, and then it<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_243" id="Page_243">[243]</a></span> -was universally adopted. But the curious thing is that it was -nearly always the women who busied themselves in inventing new -words as well as in composing songs, dirges and rhetorical essays. -The word-formations here alluded to are probably names of objects -that the Botocudos had not known previously ... as for horse, -<i>krainejoune</i>, ‘head-teeth’; for ox, <i>po-kekri</i>, ‘foot-cloven’; for -donkey, <i>mgo-jonne-orône</i>, ‘beast with long ears.’ But well-known -objects which have already got a name have often similar new -denominations invented for them, which are then soon accepted by -the family and community and spread more and more” (<i>v.</i> Martius, -<cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Beitr. zur Ethnogr. u. Sprachenkunde Amerikas</cite>, 1867, i. 330).</p> - -<p>I may also quote what E. R. Edwards says in his <cite lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Étude phonétique -de la langue japonaise</cite> (Leipzig, 1903, p. 79): “In France and in -England it might be said that women avoid neologisms and are -careful not to go too far away from the written forms: in Southern -England the sound written <i>wh</i> [ʍ] is scarcely ever pronounced -except in girls’ schools. In Japan, on the contrary, women are -less conservative than men, whether in pronunciation or in the -selection of words and expressions. One of the chief reasons is -that women have not to the same degree as men undergone the -influence of the written language. As an example of the liberties -which the women take may be mentioned that there is in the -actual pronunciation of Tokyo a strong tendency to get rid of -the sound (<i>w</i>), but the women go further in the word <i>atashi</i>, which -men pronounce <i>watashi</i> or <i>watakshi</i>, ‘I.’ Another tendency noticed -in the language of Japanese women is pretty widely spread among -French and English women, namely, the excessive use of intensive -words and the exaggeration of stress and tone-accent to mark -emphasis. Japanese women also make a much more frequent use -than men of the prefixes of politeness <i>o-</i>, <i>go-</i> and <i>mi-</i>.”</p> - - -<h4>XIII.—§ 6. Phonetics and Grammar.</h4> - -<p>In connexion with some of the phonetic changes which have -profoundly modified the English sound system we have express -statements by old grammarians that women had a more advanced -pronunciation than men, and characteristically enough these -statements refer to the raising of the vowels in the direction -of [i]; thus in Sir Thomas Smith (1567), who uses expressions like -“<span lang="la" xml:lang="la">mulierculæ quædam delicatiores, et nonnulli qui volunt isto -modo videri loqui urbanius</span>,” and in another place “<span lang="la" xml:lang="la">fœminæ -quædam delicatiores</span>,” further in Mulcaster (1582)<a name="FNanchor_53_53" id="FNanchor_53_53"></a><a href="#Footnote_53_53" class="fnanchor">[53]</a> and in Milton’s<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_244" id="Page_244">[244]</a></span> -teacher, Alexander Gill (1621), who speaks about “<span lang="la" xml:lang="la">nostræ Mopsæ, -quæ quidem ita omnia attenuant</span>.”</p> - -<p>In France, about 1700, women were inclined to pronounce <i>e</i> -instead of <i>a</i>; thus Alemand (1688) mentions <i>Barnabé</i> as “<span lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">façon -de prononcer mâle</span>” and <i>Bernabé</i> as the pronunciation of “<span lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">les -gens polis et délicats ... les dames surtout</span>”; and Grimarest (1712) -speaks of “<span lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">ces marchandes du Palais, qui au lieu de <i>madame</i>, -<i>boulevart</i>, etc., prononcent <i>medeme</i>, <i>boulevert</i></span>” (Thurot i. 12 and 9).</p> - -<p>There is one change characteristic of many languages in which -it seems as if women have played an important part even if they -are not solely responsible for it: I refer to the weakening of the old -fully trilled tongue-point <i>r</i>. I have elsewhere (<cite lang="da" xml:lang="da">Fonetik</cite>, p. 417 ff.) -tried to show that this weakening, which results in various sounds -and sometimes in a complete omission of the sound in some positions, -is in the main a consequence of, or at any rate favoured by, a -change in social life: the old loud trilled point sound is natural and -justified when life is chiefly carried on out-of-doors, but indoor -life prefers, on the whole, less noisy speech habits, and the more -refined this domestic life is, the more all kinds of noises and even -speech sounds will be toned down. One of the results is that this -original <i>r</i> sound, the rubadub in the orchestra of language, is no -longer allowed to bombard the ears, but is softened down in various -ways, as we see chiefly in the great cities and among the educated -classes, while the rustic population in many countries keeps up -the old sound with much greater conservatism. Now we find that -women are not unfrequently mentioned in connexion with this -reduction of the trilled <i>r</i>; thus in the sixteenth century in France -there was a tendency to leave off the trilling and even to go further -than to the present English untrilled point <i>r</i> by pronouncing [z] -instead, but some of the old grammarians mention this pronunciation -as characteristic of women and a few men who imitate women -(Erasmus: <span lang="la" xml:lang="la">mulierculæ Parisinæ; Sylvius: mulierculæ ... Parrhisinæ, -et earum modo quidam parum viri</span>; Pillot: <span lang="la" xml:lang="la">Parisinæ mulierculæ -... adeo delicatulæ sunt, ut pro <i>pere</i> dicant <i>pese</i></span>). In the ordinary -language there are a few remnants of this tendency; thus, when -by the side of the original <i>chaire</i> we now have also the form <i>chaise</i>, -and it is worthy of note that the latter form is reserved for the -everyday signification (Engl. chair, seat) as belonging more naturally -to the speech of women, while <i>chaire</i> has the more special signification -of ‘pulpit, professorial chair.’ Now the same tendency to -substitute [z]—or after a voiceless sound [s]—for <i>r</i> is found in our -own days among the ladies of Christiania, who will say <i>gzuelig</i> -for <i>gruelig</i> and <i>fsygtelig</i> for <i>frygtelig</i> (Brekke, <cite lang="da" xml:lang="da">Bidrag til dansknorskens -lydlære</cite>, 1881, p. 17; I have often heard the sound myself). And -even in far-off Siberia we find that the Chuckchi women will say<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_245" id="Page_245">[245]</a></span> -<i>nídzak</i> or <i>nízak</i> for the male <i>nírak</i> ‘two,’ <i>zërka</i> for <i>rërka</i> ‘walrus,’ -etc. (Nordqvist; see fuller quotations in my <cite lang="da" xml:lang="da">Fonetik</cite>, p. 431).</p> - -<p>In present-day English there are said to be a few differences -in pronunciation between the two sexes; thus, according to Daniel -Jones, <i>soft</i> is pronounced with a long vowel [sɔ·ft] by men and with -a short vowel [sɔft] by women; similarly [gɛel] is said to be a -special ladies’ pronunciation of <i>girl</i>, which men usually pronounce -[gə·l]; cf. also on <i>wh</i> above, p. <a href="#Page_243">243</a>. So far as I have been able to -ascertain, the pronunciation [tʃuldrən] for [tʃildrən] <i>children</i> is -much more frequent in women than in men. It may also be that -women are more inclined to give to the word <i>waistcoat</i> the full -long sound in both syllables, while men, who have occasion to -use the word more frequently, tend to give it the historical form -[weskət] (for the shortening compare <i>breakfast</i>). But even if such -observations were multiplied—as probably they might easily be -by an attentive observer—they would be only more or less isolated -instances, without any deeper significance, and on the whole we -must say that from the phonetic point of view there is scarcely -any difference between the speech of men and that of women: the -two sexes speak for all intents and purposes the same language.</p> - - -<h4>XIII.—§ 7. Choice of Words.</h4> - -<p>But when from the field of phonetics we come to that of vocabulary -and style, we shall find a much greater number of differences, -though they have received very little attention in linguistic works. -A few have been mentioned by Greenough and Kittredge: “The -use of <i>common</i> in the sense of ‘vulgar’ is distinctly a feminine -peculiarity. It would sound effeminate in the speech of a man. So, -in a less degree, with <i>person</i> for ‘woman,’ in contrast to ‘lady.’ -<i>Nice</i> for ‘fine’ must have originated in the same way” (W, p. 54).</p> - -<p>Others have told me that men will generally say ‘It’s very -<i>good</i> of you,’ where women will say ‘It’s very <i>kind</i> of you.’ -But such small details can hardly be said to be really characteristic -of the two sexes. There is no doubt, however, that women in all -countries are shy of mentioning certain parts of the human body -and certain natural functions by the direct and often rude denominations -which men, and especially young men, prefer when among -themselves. Women will therefore invent innocent and euphemistic -words and paraphrases, which sometimes may in the long run come -to be looked upon as the plain or blunt names, and therefore in their -turn have to be avoided and replaced by more decent words.</p> - -<p>In Pinero’s <cite>The Gay Lord Quex</cite> (p. 116) a lady discovers some -French novels on the table of another lady, and says: “This is -a little—h’m—isn’t it?”—she does not even dare to say the word<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_246" id="Page_246">[246]</a></span> -‘indecent,’ and has to express the idea in inarticulate language. -The word ‘naked’ is paraphrased in the following description -by a woman of the work of girls in ammunition works: “They -have to take off every stitch from their bodies in one room, and -run <i>in their innocence and nothing else</i> to another room where -the special clothing is” (Bennett, <cite>The Pretty Lady</cite>, 176).</p> - -<p>On the other hand, the old-fashioned prudery which prevented -ladies from using such words as <i>legs</i> and <i>trousers</i> (“those manly -garments which are rarely mentioned by name,” says Dickens, -<cite>Dombey</cite>, 335) is now rightly looked upon as exaggerated and more -or less comical (cf. my GS § 247).</p> - -<p>There can be no doubt that women exercise a great and universal -influence on linguistic development through their instinctive -shrinking from coarse and gross expressions and their preference -for refined and (in certain spheres) veiled and indirect expressions. -In most cases that influence will be exercised privately and in the -bosom of the family; but there is one historical instance in which -a group of women worked in that direction publicly and collectively; -I refer to those French ladies who in the seventeenth century gathered -in the Hôtel de Rambouillet and are generally known under the -name of <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Précieuses</i>. They discussed questions of spelling and -of purity of pronunciation and diction, and favoured all kinds -of elegant paraphrases by which coarse and vulgar words might -be avoided. In many ways this movement was the counterpart -of the literary wave which about that time was inundating Europe -under various names—Gongorism in Spain, Marinism in Italy, -Euphuism in England; but the Précieuses went further than their -male confrères in desiring to influence everyday language. When, -however, they used such expressions as, for ‘nose,’ ‘the door of the -brain,’ for ‘broom’ ‘the instrument of cleanness,’ and for ‘shirt’ -‘the constant companion of the dead and the living’ (<span lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">la compagne -perpétuelle des morts et des vivants</span>), and many others, their -affectation called down on their heads a ripple of laughter, and -their endeavours would now have been forgotten but for the immortal -satire of Molière in <cite lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Les Précieuses ridicules</cite> and <cite lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Les Femmes -savantes</cite>. But apart from such exaggerations the feminine point -of view is unassailable, and there is reason to congratulate those -nations, the English among them, in which the social position of -women has been high enough to secure greater purity and freedom -from coarseness in language than would have been the case if -men had been the sole arbiters of speech.</p> - -<p>Among the things women object to in language must be specially -mentioned anything that smacks of swearing<a name="FNanchor_54_54" id="FNanchor_54_54"></a><a href="#Footnote_54_54" class="fnanchor">[54]</a>; where a man will<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_247" id="Page_247">[247]</a></span> -say “He told an infernal lie,” a woman will rather say, “He told -a most dreadful fib.” Such euphemistic substitutes for the simple -word ‘hell’ as ‘the other place,’ ‘a very hot’ or ‘a very uncomfortable -place’ probably originated with women. They will also -use <i>ever</i> to add emphasis to an interrogative pronoun, as in -“Whoever told you that?” or “Whatever do you mean?” -and avoid the stronger ‘who the devil’ or ‘what the dickens.’ -For surprise we have the feminine exclamations ‘Good gracious,’ -‘Gracious me,’ ‘Goodness gracious,’ ‘Dear me’ by the side of the -more masculine ‘Good heavens,’ ‘Great Scott.’ ‘To be sure’ is said -to be more frequent with women than with men. Such instances -might be multiplied, but these may suffice here. It will easily be -seen that we have here civilized counterparts of what was above -mentioned as sexual tabu; but it is worth noting that the interdiction -in these cases is ordained by the women themselves, or perhaps -rather by the older among them, while the young do not always -willingly comply.</p> - -<p>Men will certainly with great justice object that there is a danger -of the language becoming languid and insipid if we are always to -content ourselves with women’s expressions, and that vigour and -vividness count for something. Most boys and many men have -a dislike to some words merely because they feel that they are used -by everybody and on every occasion: they want to avoid what is -commonplace and banal and to replace it by new and fresh expressions, -whose very newness imparts to them a flavour of their -own. Men thus become the chief renovators of language, and -to them are due those changes by which we sometimes see one -term replace an older one, to give way in turn to a still newer one, and -so on. Thus we see in English that the old verb <i>weorpan</i>, corresponding -to G. <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">werfen</i>, was felt as too weak and therefore supplanted -by <i>cast</i>, which was taken from Scandinavian; after some centuries -<i>cast</i> was replaced by the stronger <i>throw</i>, and this now, in the parlance -of boys especially, is giving way to stronger expressions like <i>chuck</i> -and <i>fling</i>. The old verbs, or at any rate <i>cast</i>, may be retained in -certain applications, more particularly in some fixed combinations -and in figurative significations, but it is now hardly possible to say, -as Shakespeare does, “They cast their caps up.” Many such -innovations on their first appearance are counted as slang, and -some never make their way into received speech; but I am not -in this connexion concerned with the distinction between slang<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_248" id="Page_248">[248]</a></span> -and recognized language, except in so far as the inclination or -disinclination to invent and to use slang is undoubtedly one of the -“human secondary sexual characters.” This is not invalidated -by the fact that quite recently, with the rise of the feminist movement, -many young ladies have begun to imitate their brothers in -that as well as in other respects.</p> - - -<h4>XIII.—§ 8. Vocabulary.</h4> - -<p>This trait is indissolubly connected with another: the vocabulary -of a woman as a rule is much less extensive than that of a man. -Women move preferably in the central field of language, avoiding -everything that is out of the way or bizarre, while men will often -either coin new words or expressions or take up old-fashioned ones, -if by that means they are enabled, or think they are enabled, to -find a more adequate or precise expression for their thoughts. -Woman as a rule follows the main road of language, where man is -often inclined to turn aside into a narrow footpath or even to strike -out a new path for himself. Most of those who are in the habit -of reading books in foreign languages will have experienced a much -greater average difficulty in books written by male than by female -authors, because they contain many more rare words, dialect words, -technical terms, etc. Those who want to learn a foreign language -will therefore always do well at the first stage to read many ladies’ -novels, because they will there continually meet with just those -everyday words and combinations which the foreigner is above -all in need of, what may be termed the indispensable small-change -of a language.</p> - -<p>This may be partly explicable from the education of women, -which has up to quite recent times been less comprehensive and -technical than that of men. But this does not account for everything, -and certain experiments made by the American professor -Jastrow would tend to show that we have here a trait that is independent -of education. He asked twenty-five university students -of each sex, belonging to the same class and thus in possession of -the same preliminary training, to write down as rapidly as possible a -hundred words, and to record the time. Words in sentences were -not allowed. There were thus obtained 5,000 words, and of these -many were of course the same. But the community of thought -was greater in the women; while the men used 1,375 different -words, their female class-mates used only 1,123. Of 1,266 unique -words used, 29·8 per cent. were male, only 20·8 per cent. female. -The group into which the largest number of the men’s words fell -was the animal kingdom; the group into which the largest number -of the women’s words fell was wearing apparel and fabrics; while<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_249" id="Page_249">[249]</a></span> -the men used only 53 words belonging to the class of foods, the -women used 179. “In general the feminine traits revealed by -this study are an attention to the immediate surroundings, to the -finished product, to the ornamental, the individual, and the concrete; -while the masculine preference is for the more remote, the -constructive, the useful, the general and the abstract.” (See -Havelock Ellis, <cite>Man and Woman</cite>, 4th ed., London, 1904, -p. 189.)</p> - -<p>Another point mentioned by Jastrow is the tendency to select -words that rime and alliterative words; both these tendencies -were decidedly more marked in men than in women. This shows -what we may also notice in other ways, that men take greater -interest in words as such and in their acoustic properties, while -women pay less attention to that side of words and merely take -them as they are, as something given once for all. Thus it comes -that some men are confirmed punsters, while women are generally -slow to see any point in a pun and scarcely ever perpetrate one -themselves. Or, to get to something of greater value: the science -of language has very few votaries among women, in spite of the -fact that foreign languages, long before the reform of female education, -belonged to those things which women learnt best in and out -of schools, because, like music and embroidery, they were reckoned -among the specially feminine ‘accomplishments.’</p> - -<p>Woman is linguistically quicker than man: quicker to learn, -quicker to hear, and quicker to answer. A man is slower: he -hesitates, he chews the cud to make sure of the taste of words, and -thereby comes to discover similarities with and differences from -other words, both in sound and in sense, thus preparing himself -for the appropriate use of the fittest noun or adjective.</p> - - -<h4>XIII.—§ 9. Adverbs.</h4> - -<p>While there are a few adjectives, such as <i>pretty</i> and <i>nice</i>, that -might be mentioned as used more extensively by women than by -men, there are greater differences with regard to adverbs. Lord -Chesterfield wrote (<cite>The World</cite>, December 5, 1754): “Not contented -with enriching our language by words absolutely new, my fair -countrywomen have gone still farther, and improved it by the -application and extension of old ones to various and very different -significations. They take a word and change it, like a guinea into -shillings for pocket-money, to be employed in the several occasional -purposes of the day. For instance, the adjective <i>vast</i> and its -adverb <i>vastly</i> mean anything, and are the fashionable words of the -most fashionable people. A fine woman ... is <i>vastly</i> obliged, or -<i>vastly</i> offended, <i>vastly</i> glad, or <i>vastly</i> sorry. Large objects are<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_250" id="Page_250">[250]</a></span> -<i>vastly</i> great, small ones are <i>vastly</i> little; and I had lately the -pleasure to hear a fine woman pronounce, by a happy metonymy, -a very small gold snuff-box, that was produced in company, -to be <i>vastly</i> pretty, because it was so <i>vastly</i> little.” Even if -that particular adverb to which Lord Chesterfield objected has -now to a great extent gone out of fashion, there is no doubt -that he has here touched on a distinctive trait: the fondness of -women for hyperbole will very often lead the fashion with regard -to adverbs of intensity, and these are very often used with disregard -of their proper meaning, as in German <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">riesig klein</i>, English <i>awfully -pretty</i>, <i>terribly nice</i>, French <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">rudement joli</i>, <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">affreusement délicieux</i>, -Danish <i lang="da" xml:lang="da">rædsom morsom</i> (horribly amusing), Russian <i>strast’ kakoy -lovkiy</i> (terribly able), etc. <i>Quite</i>, also, in the sense of ‘very,’ as -in ‘she was quite charming; it makes me quite angry,’ is, according -to Fitzedward Hall, due to the ladies. And I suspect that <i>just -sweet</i> (as in Barrie: “Grizel thought it was just sweet of him”) -is equally characteristic of the usage of the fair sex.</p> - -<p>There is another intensive which has also something of the -eternally feminine about it, namely <i>so</i>. I am indebted to Stoffel -(Int. 101) for the following quotation from <cite>Punch</cite> (January 4, -1896): “This little adverb is a great favourite with ladies, in conjunction -with an adjective. For instance, they are very fond of -using such expressions as ‘He is <em>so</em> charming!’ ‘It is <em>so</em> lovely!’ -etc.” Stoffel adds the following instances of strongly intensive -<i>so</i> as highly characteristic of ladies’ usage: ‘Thank you <em>so</em> much!’ -‘It was <em>so</em> kind of you to think of it!’ ‘That’s <em>so</em> like you!’ -‘I’m <em>so</em> glad you’ve come!’ ‘The bonnet is <em>so</em> lovely!’</p> - -<p>The explanation of this characteristic feminine usage is, I think, -that women much more often than men break off without finishing -their sentences, because they start talking without having thought -out what they are going to say; the sentence ‘I’m so glad you’ve -come’ really requires some complement in the shape of a clause -with <i>that</i>, ‘so glad that I really must kiss you,’ or, ‘so glad that I -must treat you to something extra,’ or whatever the consequence -may be. But very often it is difficult in a hurry to hit upon something -adequate to say, and ‘so glad that I cannot express it’ -frequently results in the inexpressible remaining unexpressed, and -when that experiment has been repeated time after time, the linguistic -consequence is that a strongly stressed <i>so</i> acquires the force -of ‘very much indeed.’ It is the same with <i>such</i>, as in the -following two extracts from a modern novel (in both it is a lady -who is speaking): “Poor Kitty! she has been in <em>such</em> a state of -mind,” and “Do you know that you look <em>such</em> a duck this afternoon.... -This hat suits you <em>so</em>—you are <em>such</em> a <i>grande dame</i> in it.” -Exactly the same thing has happened with Danish <i lang="da" xml:lang="da">så</i> and <i lang="da" xml:lang="da">sådan</i>,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_251" id="Page_251">[251]</a></span> -G. <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">so</i> and <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">solch</i>; also with French <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">tellement</i>, though there perhaps -not to the same extent as in English.</p> - -<p>We have the same phenomenon with <i>to a degree</i>, which properly -requires to be supplemented with something that tells us what -the degree is, but is frequently left by itself, as in ‘His second -marriage was irregular to a degree.’</p> - - -<h4>XIII.—§ 10. Periods.</h4> - -<p>The frequency with which women thus leave their exclamatory -sentences half-finished might be exemplified from many passages -in our novelists and dramatists. I select a few quotations. -The first is from the beginning of <cite>Vanity Fair</cite>: “This almost caused -Jemima to faint with terror. ‘Well, I never,’ said she. ‘What -an audacious’—emotion prevented her from completing either -sentence.” Next from one of Hankin’s plays. “Mrs. Eversleigh: -I must say! (but words fail her).” And finally from Compton -Mackenzie’s <cite>Poor Relations</cite>: “‘The trouble you must have taken,’ -Hilda exclaimed.” These quotations illustrate types of sentences -which are becoming so frequent that they would seem soon to -deserve a separate chapter in modern grammars, ‘Did you ever?’ -‘Well, I never!’ being perhaps the most important of these -‘stop-short’ or ‘pull-up’ sentences, as I think they might be -termed.</p> - -<p>These sentences are the linguistic symptoms of a peculiarity -of feminine psychology which has not escaped observation. Meredith -says of one of his heroines: “She thought in blanks, as girls -do, and some women,” and Hardy singularizes one of his by calling -her “that novelty among women—one who finished a thought -before beginning the sentence which was to convey it.”</p> - -<p>The same point is seen in the typical way in which the two -sexes build up their sentences and periods; but here, as so often -in this chapter, we cannot establish absolute differences, but -only preferences that may be broken in a great many instances -and yet are characteristic of the sexes as such. If we compare -long periods as constructed by men and by women, we shall in the -former find many more instances of intricate or involute structures -with clause within clause, a relative clause in the middle of a conditional -clause or vice versa, with subordination and sub-subordination, -while the typical form of long feminine periods is that of -co-ordination, one sentence or clause being added to another on the -same plane and the gradation between the respective ideas being -marked not grammatically, but emotionally, by stress and intonation, -and in writing by underlining. In learned terminology we -may say that men are fond of hypotaxis and women of parataxis.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_252" id="Page_252">[252]</a></span> -Or we may use the simile that a male period is often like a set of -Chinese boxes, one within another, while a feminine period is like -a set of pearls joined together on a string of <i>ands</i> and similar words. -In a Danish comedy a young girl is relating what has happened -to her at a ball, when she is suddenly interrupted by her brother, -who has slyly taken out his watch and now exclaims: “I declare! -you have said <i>and then</i> fifteen times in less than two and a half -minutes.”</p> - - -<h4>XIII.—§ 11. General Characteristics.</h4> - -<p>The greater rapidity of female thought is shown linguistically, -among other things, by the frequency with which a woman will use -a pronoun like <i>he</i> or <i>she</i>, not of the person last mentioned, but -of somebody else to whom her thoughts have already wandered, -while a man with his slower intellect will think that she is still -moving on the same path. The difference in rapidity of perception -has been tested experimentally by Romanes: the same paragraph -was presented to various well-educated persons, who were asked -to read it as rapidly as they could, ten seconds being allowed for -twenty lines. As soon as the time was up the paragraph was -removed, and the reader immediately wrote down all that he or -she could remember of it. It was found that women were usually -more successful than men in this test. Not only were they able -to read more quickly than the men, but they were able to give a -better account of the paragraph as a whole. One lady, for instance, -could read exactly four times as fast as her husband, and even -then give a better account than he of that small portion of the -paragraph he had alone been able to read. But it was found that -this rapidity was no proof of intellectual power, and some of the -slowest readers were highly distinguished men. Ellis (<cite>Man and W.</cite> -195) explains this in this way: with the quick reader it is as though -every statement were admitted immediately and without inspection -to fill the vacant chambers of the mind, while with the slow reader -every statement undergoes an instinctive process of cross-examination; -every new fact seems to stir up the accumulated stores of -facts among which it intrudes, and so impedes rapidity of mental -action.</p> - -<p>This reminds me of one of Swift’s “Thoughts on Various Subjects”: -“The common fluency of speech in many men, and most -women, is owing to the scarcity of matter, and scarcity of words; for -whoever is a master of language, and hath a mind full of ideas, will -be apt in speaking to hesitate upon the choice of both: whereas -common speakers have only one set of ideas, and one set of words -to clothe them in; and these are always ready at the mouth. So<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_253" id="Page_253">[253]</a></span> -people come faster out of a church when it is almost empty, than -when a crowd is at the door” (<cite>Works</cite>, Dublin, 1735, i. 305).</p> - -<p>The volubility of women has been the subject of innumerable -jests: it has given rise to popular proverbs in many countries,<a name="FNanchor_55_55" id="FNanchor_55_55"></a><a href="#Footnote_55_55" class="fnanchor">[55]</a> as -well as to Aurora Leigh’s resigned “A woman’s function plainly -is—to talk” and Oscar Wilde’s sneer, “Women are a decorative -sex. They never have anything to say, but they say it charmingly.” -A woman’s thought is no sooner formed than uttered. Says Rosalind, -“Do you not know I am a woman? when I think, I must -speak” (<cite>As You Like It</cite>, <span class="smcap lowercase">III.</span> 2. 264). And in a modern novel a -young girl says: “I talk so as to find out what I think. Don’t -you? Some things one can’t judge of till one hears them spoken” -(Housman, <cite>John of Jingalo</cite>, 346).</p> - -<p>The superior readiness of speech of women is a concomitant -of the fact that their vocabulary is smaller and more central than -that of men. But this again is connected with another indubitable -fact, that women do not reach the same extreme points as men, -but are nearer the average in most respects. Havelock Ellis, -who establishes this in various fields, rightly remarks that the -statement that genius is undeniably of more frequent occurrence -among men than among women has sometimes been regarded -by women as a slur upon their sex, but that it does not appear -that women have been equally anxious to find fallacies in the -statement that idiocy is more common among men. Yet the -two statements must be taken together. Genius is more common -among men by virtue of the same general tendency by which idiocy -is more common among men. The two facts are but two aspects -of a larger zoological fact—the greater variability of the male -(<cite>Man and W.</cite> 420).</p> - -<p>In language we see this very clearly: the highest linguistic -genius and the lowest degree of linguistic imbecility are very -rarely found among women. The greatest orators, the most -famous literary artists, have been men; but it may serve as a -sort of consolation to the other sex that there are a much greater -number of men than of women who cannot put two words together -intelligibly, who stutter and stammer and hesitate, and are unable -to find suitable expressions for the simplest thought. Between -these two extremes the woman moves with a sure and supple tongue -which is ever ready to find words and to pronounce them in a clear -and intelligible manner.</p> -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_254" id="Page_254">[254]</a></span></p> -<p>Nor are the reasons far to seek why such differences should have -developed. They are mainly dependent on the division of labour -enjoined in primitive tribes and to a great extent also among more -civilized peoples. For thousands of years the work that especially -fell to men was such as demanded an intense display of energy -for a comparatively short period, mainly in war and in hunting. -Here, however, there was not much occasion to talk, nay, in many -circumstances talk might even be fraught with danger. And when -that rough work was over, the man would either sleep or idle his -time away, inert and torpid, more or less in silence. Woman, -on the other hand, had a number of domestic occupations which -did not claim such an enormous output of spasmodic energy. To -her was at first left not only agriculture, and a great deal of other -work which in more peaceful times was taken over by men; but -also much that has been till quite recently her almost exclusive -concern—the care of the children, cooking, brewing, baking, sewing, -washing, etc.,—things which for the most part demanded no deep -thought, which were performed in company and could well be -accompanied with a lively chatter. Lingering effects of this state -of things are seen still, though great social changes are going on -in our times which may eventually modify even the linguistic -relations of the two sexes.</p> - - - -<div class="chapter"> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_255" id="Page_255">[255]</a></span></p> - - - - - -<h3 class="nobreak"><a name="CHAPTER_XIV" id="CHAPTER_XIV">CHAPTER XIV</a><br /> - -<span class="larger">CAUSES OF CHANGE</span></h3> -</div> - -<div class="blockquot chaptersummary"> - -<p>§ 1. Anatomy. § 2. Geography. § 3. National Psychology. § 4. Speed of -Utterance. § 5. Periods of Rapid Change. § 6. The Ease Theory. -§ 7. Sounds in Connected Speech. § 8. Extreme Weakenings. § 9. The -Principle of Value. § 10. Application to Case System, etc. § 11. Stress -Phenomena. § 12. Non-phonetic Changes.</p></div> - - -<h4>XIV.—§ 1. Anatomy.</h4> - -<p>In accordance with the programme laid down in the opening -paragraph of Book III, we shall now deal in detail with those -linguistic changes which are not due to transference to new -individuals. The chapter on woman’s language has served as -a kind of bridge between the two main divisions, in so far as the -first sections treated of those women’s dialects which were, or -were supposed to be, due to the influence of foreigners.</p> - -<p>Many theories have been advanced to explain the indubitable -fact that languages change in course of time. Some scholars -have thought that there ought to be one fundamental cause -working in all instances, while others, more sensibly, have -maintained that a variety of causes have been and are at work, -and that it is not easy to determine which of them has been -decisive in each observed case of change. The greatest attention -has been given to phonetic change, and in reading some theorists -one might almost fancy that sounds were the only thing changeable, -or at any rate that phonetic changes were the only ones in -language which had to be accounted for. Let us now examine -some of the theories advanced.</p> - -<p>Sometimes it is asserted that sound changes must have their -cause in changes in the anatomical structure of the articulating -organs. This theory, however, need not detain us long (see the -able discussion in Oertel, p. 194 ff.), for no facts have been -alleged to support it, and one does not see why small anatomical -variations should cause changes so long as any teacher of -languages on the phonetic method is able to teach his pupils -practically every speech sound, even those that their own native -language has been without for centuries. Besides, many phonetic -changes do not at all lead to new sounds being developed or old<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_256" id="Page_256">[256]</a></span> -ones lost, but simply to the old sounds being used in new places -or disused in some of the places where they were formerly found. -Some tribes have a custom of mutilating their lips or teeth, -and that of course must have caused changes in their pronunciation, -which are said to have persisted even after the -custom was given up. Thus, according to Meinhof (MSA -60) the Yao women insert a big wooden disk within the upper -lip, which makes it impossible for them to pronounce [f], and -as it is the women that teach their children to speak, the sound -of [f] has disappeared from the language, though now it is -beginning to reappear in loan-words. It is clear, however, that -such customs can have exercised only the very slightest influence -on language in general.</p> - - -<h4>XIV.—§ 2. Geography.</h4> - -<p>Some scholars have believed in an influence exercised by climatic -or geographical conditions on the character of the sound system, -instancing as evidence the harsh consonants found in the languages -of the Caucasus as contrasted with the pleasanter sounds heard -in regions more favoured by nature. But this influence cannot -be established as a general rule. “The aboriginal inhabitants -of the north-west coast of America found subsistence relatively -easy in a country abounding in many forms of edible marine life; -nor can they be said to have been subjected to rigorous climatic -conditions; yet in phonetic harshness their languages rival those -of the Caucasus. On the other hand, perhaps no people has -ever been subjected to a more forbidding physical environment -than the Eskimos, yet the Eskimo language not only impresses -one as possessed of a relatively agreeable phonetic system when -compared with the languages of the north-west coast, but may even -be thought to compare favourably with American Indian languages -generally” (Sapir, <cite>American Anthropologist</cite>, XIV (1912), 234). -It would also on this theory be difficult to account for the -very considerable linguistic changes which have taken place in -historical times in many countries whose climate, etc., cannot -during the same period have changed correspondingly.</p> - -<p>A geographical theory of sound-shifting was advanced by -Heinrich Meyer-Benfey in <cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Zeitschr. f. deutsches Altert.</cite> 45 (1901), -and has recently been taken up by H. Collitz in <cite>Amer. Journal -of Philol.</cite> 39 (1918), p. 413. Consonant shifting is chiefly found -in mountain regions; this is most obvious in the High German -shift, which started from the Alpine district of Southern Germany. -After leaving the region of the high mountains it gradually -decreases in strength; yet it keeps on extending, with steadily<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_257" id="Page_257">[257]</a></span> -diminishing energy, over part of the area of the Franconian dialects. -But having reached the plains of Northern Germany, the movement -stops. The same theory applies to languages in which a similar -shifting is found, e.g. Old and Modern Armenian, the Soho language -in South Africa, etc. “However strange it may appear -at the first glance,” says Collitz, “that certain consonant changes -should depend on geographical surroundings, the connexion is -easily understood. The change of media to tenuis and that of -tenuis to affricate or aspirate are linked together by a common -feature, viz. an increase in the intensity of expiration. As the -common cause of both these shiftings we may therefore regard -a change in the manner in which breath is used for pronunciation. -The habitual use of a larger volume of breath means an increased -activity of the lungs. Here we have reached the point where -the connexion with geographical or climatic conditions is clear, -because nobody will deny that residence in the mountains, especially -in the high mountains, stimulates the lungs.”</p> - -<p>When this theory was first brought to my notice, I wrote a -short footnote on it (PhG 176), in which I treated it with perhaps -too little respect, merely mentioning the fact that my countrymen, -the Danes, in their flat country were developing exactly the same -shift as the High Germans (making <i>p</i>, <i>t</i>, <i>k</i> into strongly aspirated -or affricated sounds and unvoicing <i>b</i>, <i>d</i>, <i>g</i>); I then asked ironically -whether that might be a consequence of the indubitable fact that -an increasing number of Danes every summer go to Switzerland -and Norway for their holidays. And even now, after the theory -has been endorsed by so able an advocate as Collitz, I fail to -see how it can hold water. The induction seems faulty on both -sides, for the shift is found among peoples living in plains, and -on the other hand it is not shared by all mountain peoples—for -example, not by the Italian and Ladin speaking neighbours of -the High Germans in the Alps. Besides, the physiological explanation -is not impeccable, for walking in the mountains affects the -way in which we breathe, that is, it primarily affects the lungs, -but the change in the consonants is primarily one not in the lungs, -but in the glottis; as the connexion between these two things -is not necessary, the whole reasoning is far from being cogent. -At any rate, the theory can only with great difficulty be applied -to the first Gothonic shift, for how do we know that that started -in mountainous regions? and who knows whether the sounds -actually found as <i>f</i>, <i>þ</i> and <i>h</i> for original <i>p</i>, <i>t</i>, <i>k</i>, had first been -aspirated and affricated stops? It seems much more probable -that the transition was a direct one, through slackening and opening -of the stoppage, but in that case it has nothing to do with the -lungs or way of breathing.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_258" id="Page_258">[258]</a></span></p> - - -<h4>XIV.—§ 3. National Psychology.</h4> - -<p>We are much more likely to ‘burn,’ as the children say, when, -instead of looking for the cause in such outward circumstances, we -try to find it in the psychology of those who initiate the change. -But this does not amount to endorsing all the explanations of -this kind which have found favour with linguists. Thus, since -the times of Grimm it has been usual to ascribe the well-known -consonant shift to psychological traits believed to be characteristic -of the Germans. Grimm says that the sound shift is a consequence -of the progressive tendency and desire of liberty found in the -Germans (GDS 292); it is due to their courage and pride in -the period of the great migration of tribes (ib. 306): “When -quiet and morality returned, the sounds remained, and it may -be reckoned as evidence of the superior gentleness and moderation -of the Gothic, Saxon and Scandinavian tribes that they -contented themselves with the first shift, while the wilder force -of the High Germans was impelled to the second shift.” (Thus -also Westphal.) Curtius finds energy and juvenile vigour in -the Germanic sound shift (KZ 2. 331, 1852). Müllenhof saw in -the transition from <i>p</i>, <i>t</i>, <i>k</i> to <i>f</i>, <i>þ</i>, <i>h</i> a sign of weakening, the -Germans having apparently lost the power of pronouncing the -hard stops; while further, the giving up of the aspirated <i>ph</i>, <i>th</i>, <i>kh</i>, -<i>bh</i>, <i>dh</i>, <i>gh</i> was due to enervation or indolence. But the succeeding -transition from the old <i>b</i>, <i>d</i>, <i>g</i> to <i>p</i>, <i>t</i>, <i>k</i> showed that they had -afterwards pulled themselves together to new exertions, and -the regularity with which all these changes were carried through -evidenced a great steadiness and persevering force (<cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Deutsche Altertumsk.</cite> -2. 197). His disciple Wilhelm Scherer saw in the whole -history of the German language alternating periods of rise and -decline in popular taste; he looked upon sound changes from -the æsthetic point of view and ascribed the (second) consonant -shift to a feminine period in which consonants were neglected -because the nation took pleasure in vocalic sounds.</p> - - -<h4>XIV.—§ 4. Speed of Utterance.</h4> - -<p>Wundt gives a different though somewhat related explanation -of the Germanic shift as due to a “revolution in culture, as -the subjugation of a native population through warlike immigrants, -with resulting new organization of the State” (S 1. 424): -this increased the speed of utterance, and he tries in detail to -show that increased speed leads naturally to just those changes -in consonants which are found in the Gothonic shift (1. 420 ff.). -But even if we admit that the average speed of talking (tempo<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_259" id="Page_259">[259]</a></span> -<span lang="de" xml:lang="de">der rede</span>) is now probably greater than formerly, the whole theory -is built up on so many doubtful or even manifestly incorrect -details both in linguistic history and in general phonetic theory -that it cannot be accepted. It does not account for the actual -facts of the consonant shifts; moreover, it is difficult to see why -such phenomena as this shift, if they were dependent on the speed -of utterance, should occur only at these particular historical times -and within comparatively narrow geographical limits, for there -is much to be said for the view that in all periods the speech -of the Western nations has been constantly gaining in rapidity -as life in general has become accelerated, and in no period probably -more than during the last century, which has witnessed no -radical consonant shift in any of the leading civilized nations.</p> - - -<h4><a id="XIV_5"></a>XIV.—§ 5. Periods of Rapid Change.</h4> - -<p>All these theories, different though they are in detail, have -this in common, that they endeavour to explain one particular -change, or set of changes, from one particular psychological trait -supposed to be prevalent at the time when the change took place, -but they fail because we are not able scientifically to demonstrate -any intimate connexion between the pronunciation of particular -sounds and a certain state of mind, and also because our knowledge -of the fluctuations of collective psychology is still so very imperfect. -But it is interesting to contrast these theories with the explanation -of the very same sound shifts mentioned in a previous chapter -(<a href="#CHAPTER_XI">XI</a>), and there shown to be equally unsatisfactory, the explanation, -namely, that the fundamental cause of the consonant shift is to -be found in the peculiar pronunciation of an aboriginal population. -In both cases the Gothonic shifts are singled out, because since -the time of Grimm the attention of scholars has been focused -on these changes more than on any others—they are looked upon -as changes <i>sui generis</i>, and therefore requiring a special explanation, -such as is not thought necessary in the case of the innumerable -minor changes that fill most of the pages of the phonological -section of any historical grammar. But the sober truth seems -to be that these shifts are not different in kind from those that -have made, say, Fr. <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">sève</i>, <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">frère</i>, <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">chien</i>, <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">ciel</i>, <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">faire</i>, <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">changer</i> out of -Lat. <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">sapa</i>, <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">fratrem</i>, <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">canem</i>, <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">kælum</i>, <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">fakere</i>, <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">cambiare</i>, etc., or those -that have changed the English vowels in <i>fate</i>, <i>feet</i>, <i>fight</i>, <i>foot</i>, <i>out</i> -from what they were when the letters which denote them still -had their ‘continental’ values. Our main endeavour, therefore, -must be to find out general reasons why sounds should not -always remain unchanged. This seems more important, at any -rate as a preliminary investigation, than attempting offhand<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_260" id="Page_260">[260]</a></span> -to assign particular reasons why in such and such a century -this or that sound was changed in some particular way.</p> - -<p>If, however, we find a particular period especially fertile in -linguistic changes (phonetic, morphological, semantic, or all at -once), it is quite natural that we should turn our attention to -the social state of the community at that time in order, if possible, -to discover some specially favouring circumstances. I am thinking -especially of two kinds of condition which may operate. In the -first place, the influence of parents, and grown-up people generally, -may be less than usual, because an unusual number of parents -may be away from home, as in great wars of long duration, -or may have been killed off, as in the great plagues; cf. also what -was said above of children left to shift for themselves in certain -favoured regions of North America (Ch. X § <a href="#X_7">7</a>). Secondly, there -may be periods in which the ordinary restraints on linguistic -change make themselves less felt than usual, because the whole -community is animated by a strong feeling of independence and -wants to break loose from social ties of many kinds, including -those of a powerful school organization or literary tradition. -This probably was the case with North America in the latter -half of the eighteenth century, when the new nation wished to -manifest its independence of old England and therefore, among -other things, was inclined to throw overboard that respect for -linguistic authority which under normal conditions makes for -conservatism. If the divergence between American and British -English is not greater than it actually is, this is probably due -partly to the continual influx of immigrants from the old country, -and partly to that increased facility of communication between -the two countries in recent times which has made mutual linguistic -influence possible to an extent formerly undreamt-of. -But in the case of the Romanic languages both of the conditions -mentioned were operating: during the centuries in which they -were framed and underwent the strongest differentiation, wars with -the intruding ‘barbarians’ and a series of destructive plagues -kept away or killed a great many grown-up people, and at the -same time each country released itself from the centralizing influence -of Rome, which in the first centuries of the Christian era -had been very powerful in keeping up a fairly uniform and conservative -pronunciation and phraseology throughout the whole -Empire.<a name="FNanchor_56_56" id="FNanchor_56_56"></a><a href="#Footnote_56_56" class="fnanchor">[56]</a> There were thus at that time various forces at work -which, taken together, are quite sufficient to explain the wide<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_261" id="Page_261">[261]</a></span> -divergence in linguistic structure that separated French, Provençal, -Spanish, etc., from classical Latin (cf. above, XI § 8, p. <a href="#Page_206">206</a>).</p> - -<p>In the history of English, one of the periods most fertile in -change is the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries: the wars with -France, the Black Death (which is said to have killed off about -one-third of the population) and similar pestilences, insurrections -like those of Wat Tyler and Jack Cade, civil wars like those of -the Roses, decimated the men and made home-life difficult and -unsettled. In the Scandinavian languages the Viking age is probably -the period that witnessed the greatest linguistic changes—if -I am right, not, as has sometimes been said, on account of -the heroic character of the period and the violent rise in self-respect -or self-assertion, but for the more prosaic reason that -the men were absent and the women had other things to attend -to than their children’s linguistic education. I am also inclined -to think that the unparalleled rapidity with which, during the -last hundred years, the vulgar speech of English cities has been -differentiated from the language of the educated classes (nearly -all long vowels being shifted, etc.) finds its natural explanation -in the unexampled misery of child-life among industrial workers -in the first half of the last century—one of the most disgraceful -blots on our overpraised civilization.</p> - - -<h4><a id="XIV_6"></a>XIV.—§ 6. The Ease Theory.</h4> - -<p>If we now turn to the actuating principles that determine -the general changeability of human speech habits, we shall find -that the moving power everywhere is an impetus starting from -the individual, and that there is a curbing power in the mere fact -that language exists not for the individual alone, but for the -whole community. The whole history of language is, as it were, -a tug-of-war between these two principles, each of which gains -victories in turn.</p> - -<p>First of all we must make up our minds with regard to the -disputed question whether the changes of language go in the -direction of greater ease, in other words, whether they manifest -a tendency towards economy of effort. The prevalent opinion -among the older school was that the chief tendency was, in -Whitney’s words, “to make things easy to our organs of speech, -to economize time and effort in the work of expression” (L 28). -Curtius very emphatically states that “<span lang="de" xml:lang="de">Bequemlichkeit ist und -bleibt der hauptanlass des lautwandels unter allen umständen</span>” -(<cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Griech. etym.</cite> 23; cf. C 7). But Leskien, Sievers, and since them -other recent writers, hold the opposite view (see quotations and -summaries in Oertel 204 f., Wechssler L 88 f.), and their view has<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_262" id="Page_262">[262]</a></span> -prevailed to the extent that Sütterlin (WW 33) characterizes -the old view as “empty talk,” “a wrong scent,” and “worthless -subterfuges now rejected by our science.”</p> - -<p>Such strong words may, however, be out of place, for is it so very -foolish to think that men in this, as in all other respects, tend to -follow ‘the line of least resistance’ and to get off with as little -exertion as possible? The question is only whether this universal -tendency can be shown to prevail in those phonetic changes which -are dealt with in linguistic history.</p> - -<p>Sütterlin thinks it enough to mention some sound changes in -which the new sound is more difficult than the old; these being -admitted, he concludes (and others have said the same thing) -that those other instances in which the new sound is evidently -easier than the old one cannot be explained by the principle of ease. -But it seems clear that this conclusion is not valid: the correct -inference can only be that the tendency towards ease may be -at work in some cases, though not in all, because there are other -forces which may at times neutralize it or prove stronger than -it. We shall meet a similar all-or-nothing fallacy in the chapter -on Sound Symbolism.</p> - -<p>Now, it is sometimes said that natives do not feel any difficulty -in the sounds of their own language, however difficult these may -be to foreigners. This is quite true if we speak of a <em>conscious</em> -perception of this or that sound being difficult to produce; but -it is no less true that the act of speaking always requires some -exertion, muscular as well as psychical, on the part of the speaker, -and that he is therefore apt on many occasions to speak with -as little effort as possible, often with the result that his voice is -not loud enough, or that his words become indistinct if he does -not move his tongue, lips, etc., with the required precision or -force. You may as well say that when once one has learnt the art -of writing, it is no longer any effort to form one’s letters properly; -and yet how many written communications do we not receive -in which many of the letters are formed so badly that we can -do little but guess from the context what each form is meant for! -There can be no doubt that the main direction of change in the -development of our written alphabet has been towards forms -requiring less and less exertion—and similar causes have led to -analogous results in the development of spoken sounds.</p> - -<p>It is not always easy to decide which of two articulations is -the easier one, and opinions may in some instances differ—we may -also find in two neighbouring nations opposite phonetic developments, -each of which may perhaps be asserted by speakers of the -language to be in the direction of greater ease. “To judge of -the difficulty of muscular activity, the muscular quantity at play<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_263" id="Page_263">[263]</a></span> -cannot serve as an absolute measure. Is [d] absolutely more -awkward to produce than [ð]? When a man is running full tilt, -it is under certain circumstances easier for him to rush against -the wall than to stop suddenly at some distance from it: when -the tongue is in motion, it may be easier for it to thrust itself -against the roof of the mouth or the teeth, i.e. to form a stop (a -plosive), than to halt at a millimetre’s distance, i.e. to form a -fricative” (Verner 78). In the same sense I wrote in 1904: “Many -an articulation which obviously requires greater muscular movements -is yet easier of execution than another in which the -movement is less, but has to be carried out with greater precision: -it requires less effort to chip wood than to operate for cataract” -(PhG 181).</p> - -<p>In other cases, however, no such doubt is possible: [s], [f] or -[x] require more muscular exertion than [h], and a replacement -of one of them by [h] therefore necessarily means a lessening of -effort. Now, I am firmly convinced that whenever a phonologist -finds one of these oral fricatives standing regularly in one language -against [h] in another, he will at once take the former sound to -be the original and [h] to be the derived sound: an indisputable -indication that the instinctive feeling of all linguists is still in -favour of the view that a movement towards the easier sound -is the rule, and not the exception.</p> - -<p>In thus taking up the cudgels for the ease theory I am not -afraid of hearing the objection that I ascribe too great power -to human laziness, indolence, inertia, shirking, easygoingness, -sloth, sluggishness, lack of energy, or whatever other beautiful -synonyms have been invented for ‘economy of effort’ or -‘following the line of least resistance.’ The fact remains that -there <em>is</em> such a ‘tendency’ in all human beings, and by taking it -into account in explaining changes of sound we are doing nothing -else than applying here the same principle that attributes many -simplifications of form to ‘analogy’: we see the same psychological -force at work in the two different domains of phonetics and -morphology.</p> - -<p>It is, of course, no serious objection to this view that if this -had been always the direction of change, speaking must have -been uncommonly troublesome to our earliest ancestors<a name="FNanchor_57_57" id="FNanchor_57_57"></a><a href="#Footnote_57_57" class="fnanchor">[57]</a>—who -says it wasn’t?—or that “if certain combinations were really -irksome in themselves, why should they have been attempted -at all; why should they often have been maintained so long?” -(Oertel 204)—as if people at a remote age had been able to compare -consciously two articulations and to choose the easier one!<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_264" id="Page_264">[264]</a></span> -Neither in language nor in any other activity has mankind at once -hit upon the best or easiest expedients.</p> - - -<h4>XIV.—§ 7. Sounds in Connected Speech.</h4> - -<p>In the great majority of linguistic changes we have to consider -the ease or difficulty, not of the isolated sound, but of the sound -in that particular conjunction with other sounds in which it occurs -in words.<a name="FNanchor_58_58" id="FNanchor_58_58"></a><a href="#Footnote_58_58" class="fnanchor">[58]</a> Thus in the numerous phenomena comprised under -the name of assimilation. There is an interesting account in the -<cite>Proceedings of the Philological Society</cite> (December 17, 1886) of a -discussion of these problems, in which Sweet, while maintaining -that “cases of saving of effort were very rare or non-existent” -and that “all the ordinary sounds of language were about on a -par as to difficulty of production,” said that assimilation “sprang -from the desire to save space in articulation and secure ease of -transition. Thus <i>pn</i> became <i>pm</i>, or else <i>mn</i>.” But in both these -changes there is saving of effort, for in the former the movement -of the tip of the tongue required for [n], and in the latter the movement -of the soft palate required for [p], is done away with<a name="FNanchor_59_59" id="FNanchor_59_59"></a><a href="#Footnote_59_59" class="fnanchor">[59]</a>: -the term “saving of space” can have no other meaning than -economy of muscular energy. And the same is true of what -Sweet terms “saving of time,” which he finds effected by dropping -superfluous sounds, especially at the end of words, e.g. [g] after -[ŋ] in E. <i>sing</i>. Here, of course, one articulation (of the velum) -is saved and this need not even be accompanied by the saving -of any time, for in such cases the remaining sound is often lengthened -so as to make up for the loss.<a name="FNanchor_60_60" id="FNanchor_60_60"></a><a href="#Footnote_60_60" class="fnanchor">[60]</a></p> - -<p>If, then, all assimilations are to be counted as instances of -saving of effort, it is worth noting that a great many phonetic<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_265" id="Page_265">[265]</a></span> -changes which are not always given under the heading of assimilation -should really be looked upon as such. If Lat. <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">saponem</i> yields -Fr. <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">savon</i>, this is the result of a whole series of assimilations: first -[p] becomes [b], because the vocal vibrations continue from the -vowel before to the vowel after the consonant, the opening of -the glottis being thus saved; then the transition of [b] to [v] -between vowels may be considered a partial assimilation to the -open lip position of the vowels; the vowel [o] is nasalized in consequence -of an assimilation to the nasal [n] (anticipation of the low -position of the velum), and the subsequent dropping of the consonant -[n] is a clear case of a different kind of assimilation (saving -of a tip movement); at an early stage the two final sounds of -<i lang="la" xml:lang="la">saponem</i> had disappeared, first [m] and later the indistinct vowel -resulting from <i>e</i>: whether we reckon these disappearances as -assimilations or not, at any rate they constitute a saving of effort. -All droppings of sounds, whether consonants (as <i>t</i> in E. <i>castle</i>, <i>postman</i>, -etc.) or vowels (as in E. <i>p’rhaps</i>, <i>bus’ness</i>, etc.), are to be -viewed in the same light, and thus by their enormous number in -the history of all languages form a strong argument in favour of -the ease theory.</p> - -<p>There is one more thing to be considered which is generally -overlooked. In such assimilations as It. <i lang="it" xml:lang="it">otto</i>, <i lang="it" xml:lang="it">sette</i>, from <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">octo</i>, -<i lang="la" xml:lang="la">septem</i>, a greater ease is effected not only by the assimilation as -such, by which one of the consonants is dropped—for that would -have been obtained just as well if the result had been <i>occo</i>, <i>seppe</i>—but -also by the fact that it is the tip action which has been retained -in both cases, for the tip of the tongue is much more flexible -and more easily moved than either the lips or the back of the tongue. -On the whole, many sound changes show how the tip is favoured -at the cost of other organs, thus in the frequent transition of -final <i>-m</i> to <i>-n</i>, found, for instance, in old Gothonic, in Middle -English, in ancient Greek, in Balto-Slavic, in Finnish and in -Chinese.</p> - -<p>In the discussion referred to above Sweet was seconded by -Lecky, who said that “assimilations vastly multiplied the number -of elementary sounds in a language, and therefore could not be -described as facilitating pronunciation.” This is a great exaggeration, -for in the vast majority of instances assimilation introduces -no new sounds at all (see, for instance, the lists in my LPh ch. xi.). -Lecky was probably thinking of such instances as when [k, g] -before front vowels become [tʃ, dʒ] or similar combinations, or -when mutation caused by [i] changes [u, o] into [y, ø], which sounds -were not previously found in the language. Here we might perhaps -say that those individuals who for the sake of their own ease -introduced new sounds made things more difficult for coming<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_266" id="Page_266">[266]</a></span> -generations (though even that is not quite certain), and the -case would then be analogous to that of a man who has learnt -a foreign expression for a new idea and then introduces it into -his own language, thus burdening his countrymen with a new -word instead of thinking how the same idea might have been -rendered by means of native speech-material—in both cases a -momentary alleviation is obtained at the cost of a permanent -disadvantage, but neither case can be alleged against the view -that the prevalent tendency among human beings is to prefer -the easiest and shortest cut.</p> - - -<h4><a id="XIV_8"></a>XIV.—§ 8. Extreme Weakenings.</h4> - -<p>When this lazy tendency is indulged to the full, the result -is an indistinct protracted vocal murmur, with here and there -possibly one or other sound (most often an <i>s</i>) rising to the surface: -think, for instance, of the way in which we often hear grace said, -prayers mumbled and other similar formulas muttered inarticulately, -with half-closed lips and the least possible movement of the rest -of the vocal organs. This is tolerated more or less in cases in -which the utterance is hardly meant as a communication to any -human being; otherwise it will generally be met with a request -to repeat what has been said, the social curb being thus applied -to the easygoing tendencies of the individual. Now, as a matter -of fact, there are in every language a certain number of word-forms -that can only be explained by this very laziness in pronouncing, -which in extreme cases leads to complete unintelligibility.</p> - -<p>Russian <i>sudar’</i> (<i>gosudar’</i>), ‘sir,’ is colloquially shortened into a -mere <i>s</i>, which may in subservient speech be added to almost any -word as a meaningless enclitic. And curiously enough the same -sound is used in exactly the same way in conversational Spanish, -as <i lang="es" xml:lang="es">buenos</i> for <i lang="es" xml:lang="es">bueno</i> ‘good,’ only here it is a weakening of <i lang="es" xml:lang="es">señor</i> -(Hanssen, <cite>Span. gramm.</cite> 60): thus two entirely different words, -from identical psychological motives, yield the same result in -two distant countries. Fr. <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">monsieur</i>, instead of [mɔ̃sjœ·r], as might -be expected, sounds [mɔsjø] and extremely frequently -[msjø] and even [psjø], with a transition not otherwise found in -French. <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Madame</i> before a name is very often shortened into -[mam]; in English the same word becomes a single sound in -<i>yes’m</i>. The weakening of <i>mistress</i> into <i>miss</i> and the old-fashioned -<i>mas</i> for <i>master</i> also belong here, as do It. forms for <i lang="it" xml:lang="it">signore</i>, <i lang="it" xml:lang="it">signora</i>: -<i lang="it" xml:lang="it">gnor si</i>, <i lang="it" xml:lang="it">gnor no</i>, <i lang="it" xml:lang="it">gnora si</i>, <i lang="it" xml:lang="it">sor Luigi</i>, <i lang="it" xml:lang="it">la sora sposa</i>, and Sp. <i lang="es" xml:lang="es">usted</i> -‘you’ for <i lang="es" xml:lang="es">vuestra merced</i>. Formulas of greeting and of politeness -are liable to similar truncations, e.g. E. <i>how d(e) do</i>, Dan. [gda’] or -even [da’] for <i lang="da" xml:lang="da">goddag</i>, G. [gmɔ̃in, gmɔ̃] for <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">guten morgen</i>, [na·mt]<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_267" id="Page_267">[267]</a></span> -for <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">guten abend</i>; Fr. <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">s’il vous plaît</i> often becomes [siuplɛ, splɛ], -and the synonymous Dan. <i lang="da" xml:lang="da">vær så god</i> is shortened into <i lang="da" xml:lang="da">værsgo</i>, of -which often only [sgo’] remains. In Russian popular speech some -small words are frequently inserted as a vague indication that -the utterance or idea belongs to some one else: <i>griu</i>, <i>grit</i>, <i>grim</i>, -<i>gril</i>, various mutilated forms of the verb <i>govorit’</i> ‘say,’ <i>mol</i> from -<i>molvit’</i> ‘speak,’ <i>de</i> from <i>dejati</i> (Boyer et Speranski, <cite>Manuel</cite> 293 ff.); -cp. the obsolete E. <i>co</i>, <i>quo</i>, for <i>quoth</i>. In all the Balkan languages -a particle <i>vre</i> is extensively used, which Hatzidakis has explained -from the vocative of OGr. <i>mōrós</i>. Modern Gr. <i>thà</i> is now a particle -of futurity, but originates in <i>thená</i>, from <i>thélei</i>, ‘he will’ + <i>nà</i> from -<i>hína</i>, ‘that.’ These examples must suffice to show that we have -here to do with a universal tendency in all languages.</p> - - -<h4><a id="XIV_9"></a>XIV.—§ 9. The Principle of Value.</h4> - -<p>To explain such deviations from normal phonetic development -some scholars have assumed that a word or form in frequent use -is liable to suffer exceptional treatment. Thus Vilhelm Thomsen, -in his brilliant paper (1879) on the Romanic verb <i>andare</i>, <i>andar</i>, -<i>anar</i>, <i>aller</i>, which he explains convincingly from Lat. <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">ambulare</i>, -says that this verb “belongs to a group of words which in all -languages stand as it were without the pale of the laws, that is, -words which from their frequent employment are exposed to -far more violent changes than other words, and therefore to some -extent follow paths of their own.”<a name="FNanchor_61_61" id="FNanchor_61_61"></a><a href="#Footnote_61_61" class="fnanchor">[61]</a> Schuchardt (<cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Ueber die lautgesetze</cite>, -1885) turned upon the ‘young grammarians,’ Paul among -the rest, who did not recognize this principle, and said that one -word (or one sound) may need 10,000 repetitions in order to be -changed into another one, and that consequently another word, -which in the same time is used only 8,000 times, must be behindhand -in its phonetic development. Quite apart from the fact that -this number is evidently too small (for a moderately loquacious -woman will easily pronounce such a word as <i>he</i> half a dozen times -as often as these figures every year), it is obvious that the reasoning -must be wrong, for were frequency the only decisive factor, G. -<i lang="de" xml:lang="de">morgen</i> would have been treated in every other connexion exactly -as it is in <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">guten morgen</i>, and that is just what has not happened. -Frequency of repetition would in itself tend to render the habitude -firmly rooted, thus really capable of resisting change, rather than -the opposite; and instead of the purely mechanical explanation -from the number of times a word is repeated, we must look for<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_268" id="Page_268">[268]</a></span> -a more psychological explanation. This naturally must be found -in the ease with which a word is understood in the given connexion -or situation, and especially in its worthlessness for the purpose -of communication. Worthlessness, however, is not the moving -power, but merely the reason why less restraint than usual is -imposed on the ever-present inclination of speakers to minimize -effort. A parallel from another, though cognate, sphere of human -activity may perhaps bring out my point of view more clearly. -The taking off of one’s hat, combined with a low bow, served from -the first to mark a more or less servile submissiveness to a prince -or conqueror; then the gesture was gradually weakened, and a -slight raising of the hat came to be a polite greeting even between -equals; this is reduced to a mere touching of the hat or cap, -and among friends the slightest movement of the hand in the -direction of the hat is thought a sufficient greeting. When, however, -it is important to indicate deference, the full ceremonial -gesture is still used (though not to the same extent by all nations); -otherwise no value is attached to it, and the inclination to spare -oneself all unnecessary exertion has caused it to dwindle down -to the slightest muscular action possible.</p> - -<p>The above instances of the truncation of everyday formulas, -etc., illustrate the length to which the ease principle can be carried -when a word has little significatory value and the intention of -the speaker can therefore be vaguely, but sufficiently, understood -if the proper sound is merely suggested or hinted at. But in most -words, and even in the words mentioned above, when they are to -bear their full meaning, the pronunciation cannot be slurred to the -same extent, if the speaker is to make himself understood. It is consequently -his interest to pronounce more carefully, and this means -greater conservatism and slower phonetic development on the whole.</p> - -<p>There are naturally many degrees of relative value or worthlessness, -and words may vary accordingly. An illustration may -be taken from my own mother-tongue: the two words <i lang="da" xml:lang="da">rigtig nok</i>, -literally ‘correct enough,’ are pronounced ['recti 'nɔk] or ['regdi 'nɔk] -when keeping their full signification, but when they are reduced -to an adverb with the same import as the weakened English -<i>certainly</i> or <i>(it is) true (that)</i>, there are various shortened pronunciations -in frequent use: ['rectnɔg, 'regdnɔg, 'regnɔg, 'renɔg, 'renəg]. -The worthlessness may affect a whole phrase, a word, or merely -one syllable or sound.</p> - - -<h4><a id="XIV_10"></a>XIV.—§ 10. Application to Case System, etc.</h4> - -<p>Our principle is important in many domains of linguistic -history. If it is asked why the elaborate Old English system of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_269" id="Page_269">[269]</a></span> -cases and genders has gradually disappeared, an answer that will -meet with the approval of most linguists of the ordinary school is -(in the words of J. A. H. Murray): “The total loss of grammatical -gender in English, and the almost complete disappearance of cases, -are purely phonetic phenomena”—supplemented, of course, by -the recognition of the action of analogy, to which is due, for instance, -the levelling of the nom. and dative plural OE. <i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">stanas</i> and <i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">stanum</i> -under the single form <i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">stones</i>. The main explanation thus is the -following: a phonetic law, operating without regard to the signification, -caused the OE. unstressed vowels <i>-a</i>, <i>-e</i>, <i>-u</i> to become -merged in an obscure <i>-e</i> in Middle English; as these endings were -very often distinctive of cases, the Old English cases were consequently -lost. Another phonetic law was operating similarly -by causing the loss of final <i>-n</i>, which also played an important -rôle in the old case system. And in this way phonetic laws and -analogy have between them made a clean sweep of it, and we need -look nowhere else for an explanation of the decay of the old -declensions.</p> - -<p>Here I beg to differ: a ‘phonetic law’ is not an explanation, -but something to be explained; it is nothing else but a mere -statement of facts, a formula of correspondence, which says nothing -about the cause of change, and we are therefore justified if we -try to dig deeper and penetrate to the real psychology of speech. -Now, let us for a moment suppose that each of the terminations -<i>-a</i>, <i>-e</i>, <i>-u</i> bore in Old English its own distinctive and sharply -defined meaning, which was necessary to the right understanding -of the sentences in which the terminations occurred (something -like the endings found in artificial languages like Ido). Would -there in that case be any probability that a phonetic law tending -to their levelling could ever have succeeded in establishing itself? -Most certainly not; the all-important regard for intelligibility -would have been sure to counteract any inclination towards a slurred -pronunciation of the endings. Nor would there have been any -occasion for new formations by analogy, as the formations were -already sufficiently analogous. But such a regularity was very -far from prevailing in Old English, as will be particularly clear -from the tabulation of the declensions as printed in my <cite>Chapters -on English</cite>, p. 10 ff.: it makes the whole question of causality appear -in a much clearer light than would be possible by any other -arrangement of the grammatical facts: the cause of the decay -of the Old English apparatus of declensions lay in its manifold -incongruities. The same termination did not always denote the -same thing: <i>-u</i> might be the nom. sg. masc. (<i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">sunu</i>) or fem. (<i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">duru</i>), -or the acc. or the dat., or the nom. or acc. pl. neuter (<i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">hofu</i>); <i>-a</i> -might be the nom. sg. masc. (<i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">guma</i>), or the dat. sg. masc. (<i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">suna</i>),<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_270" id="Page_270">[270]</a></span> -or the gen. sg. fem. (<i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">dura</i>), or the nom. pl. masc. or fem., or -finally the gen. pl.; <i>-an</i> might be the acc. or dat. or gen. sg. or -the nom. or acc. pl., etc. If we look at it from the point of view -of function, we get the same picture; the nom. pl., for instance, -might be denoted by the endings <i>-as</i>, <i>-an</i>, <i>-a</i>, <i>-e</i>, <i>-u</i>, or by mutation -without ending, or by the unchanged kernel; the dat. sg. by -<i>-e</i>, <i>-an</i>, <i>-re</i>, <i>-um</i>, by mutation, or the unchanged kernel. The -whole is one jumble of inconsistency, for many relations plainly -distinguished from each other in one class of words were but -imperfectly, if at all, distinguishable in another class. Add to -this that the names used above, dative, accusative, etc., have -no clear and definite meaning in the case of Old English, any -more than in the case of kindred tongues; sometimes it did not -matter which of two or more cases the speaker chose to employ: -some verbs took indifferently now one, now another case, and -the same is to some extent true with regard to prepositions. No -wonder, therefore, that speakers would often hesitate which of -two vowels to use in the ending, and would tend to indulge in the -universal inclination to pronounce weak syllables indistinctly -and thus confuse the formerly distinct vowels <i>a</i>, <i>i</i>, <i>e</i>, <i>u</i> into the -one neutral vowel [ə], which might even be left out without -detriment to the clear understanding of each sentence.<a name="FNanchor_62_62" id="FNanchor_62_62"></a><a href="#Footnote_62_62" class="fnanchor">[62]</a> The -only endings that were capable of withstanding this general rout -were the two in <i>s</i>, <i>-as</i> for the plural and <i>-es</i> for the gen. sg.; -here the consonant was in itself more solid, as it were, than the -other consonants used in case endings (<i>n</i>, <i>m</i>), and, which is more -decisive, each of these terminations was confined to a more -sharply limited sphere of use than the other endings, and the -functions for which they served, that of the plural and that of -the genitive, are among the most indispensable ones for clearness -of thought. Hence we see that these endings from the earliest -period of the English language tend to be applied to other -classes of nouns than those to which they were at first confined -(<i>-as</i> to masc. <i>o</i> stems ...), so as to be at last used with practically -all nouns.</p> - -<p>If explanations like Murray’s of the simplification of the -English case system are widely accepted, while views like those -attempted here will strike most readers of linguistic works as -unfamiliar, the reason may, partly at any rate, be the usual -arrangement of historical and other grammars. Here we first -have chapters on phonology, in which the facts are tabulated,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_271" id="Page_271">[271]</a></span> -each vowel being dealt with separately, no matter what its function -is in the flexional system; then, after all the sounds have been -treated in this way, we come to morphology (accidence, <span lang="de" xml:lang="de">formenlehre</span>), -in which it is natural to take the phonological facts as granted -or already known: these therefore come to be looked upon as -primary and morphology as secondary, and no attention is -paid to the <em>value</em> of the sounds for the purposes of mutual understanding.</p> - -<p>But everyday observations show that sounds have not always -the same value. In ordinary conversation one may frequently -notice how a proper name or technical term, when first introduced, -is pronounced with particular care, while no such pains is taken -when it recurs afterwards: the stress becomes weaker, the unstressed -vowels more indistinct, and this or that consonant may -be dropped. The same principle is shown in all the abbreviations -of proper names and of long words in general which have been -treated above (Ch IX § <a href="#IX_7">7</a>): here the speaker has felt assured -that his hearer has understood what or who he is talking about, -as soon as he has pronounced the initial syllable or syllables, -and therefore does not take the trouble to pronounce the rest of -the word. It has often been pointed out (see, e.g., Curtius K 72) -that stem or root syllables are generally better preserved than -the rest of the word: the reason can only be that they have -greater importance for the understanding of the idea as a whole -than other syllables.<a name="FNanchor_63_63" id="FNanchor_63_63"></a><a href="#Footnote_63_63" class="fnanchor">[63]</a> But it is especially when we come to -examine stress phenomena that we discover the full extent of -this principle of value.</p> - - -<h4>XIV.—§ 11. Stress Phenomena.</h4> - -<p>Stress is generally believed to be dependent exclusively on -the force with which the air-current is expelled from the lungs, -hence the name of ‘expiratory accent’; but various observations -and considerations have led me to give another definition -(LPh 7. 32, 1913): stress is energy, intensive muscular activity not<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_272" id="Page_272">[272]</a></span> -of one organ, but of <em>all the speech organs at once</em>. To pronounce -a ‘stressed’ syllable all organs are exerted to the utmost. The -muscles of the lungs are strongly innervated; the movements -of the vocal chords are stronger, leading on the one hand in -voiced sounds to a greater approximation of the vocal chords, -with less air escaping, but greater amplitude of vibrations and -also greater risings or fallings of the tone. In voiceless sounds, -on the other hand, the vocal chords are kept at greater distance -(than in unstressed syllables) and accordingly allow more air to -escape. In the upper organs stress is characterized by marked -articulations of the velum palati, of the tongue and of the lips. -As a result of all this, stressed syllables are loud, i.e. can be heard -at great distance, and distinct, i.e. easy to perceive in all their -components. Unstressed syllables, on the contrary, are produced -with less exertion in every way: in voiced sounds the -distance between the vocal chords is greater, which leads to the -peculiar ‘voice of murmur’; but in voiceless sounds the glottis -is not opened very wide. In the upper organs we see corresponding -slack movements; thus the velum does not shut off the nasal cavity -very closely, and the tongue tends towards a neutral position, -in which it moves very little either up and down or backwards -and forwards. The lips also are moved with less energy, and the -final result is dull and indistinct sounds. Now, all this is of the -greatest importance in the history of languages.</p> - -<p>The psychological importance of various elements is the chief, -though not the only, factor that determines sentence stress (see, for -instance, the chapters on stress in my LPh xiv. and MEG v.). Now, -it is well known that sentence stress plays a most important rôle in -the historical development of any language; it has determined -not only the difference in vowel between [wɔz] and [wəz], both -written <i>was</i>, or between the demonstrative [ðæt] and the relative -[ðət], both written <i>that</i>, but also that between <i>one</i> and <i>an</i> or <i>a</i>, -originally the same word, and between Fr. <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">moi</i> and <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">me</i>, <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">toi</i> and <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">te</i>—one -might give innumerable other instances. Value also plays -a not unimportant rôle in determining which syllable among -several in long words is stressed most, and in some languages -it has revolutionized the whole stress system. This happened with -old Gothonic, whence in modern German, Scandinavian, and in -the native elements of English we have the prevalent stressing of -the root syllable, i.e. of that syllable which has the greatest -psychological value, as in <i>'wishes</i>, <i>be'speak</i>, etc.</p> - -<p>Now, it is generally said that if double forms arise like <i>one</i> and -<i>an</i>, <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">moi</i> and <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">me</i>, the reason is that the sounds were found under -‘different phonetic conditions’ and therefore developed differently, -exactly as the difference between <i>an</i> and <i>a</i> or between Fr. <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">fol</i><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_273" id="Page_273">[273]</a></span> -and <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">fou</i> is due to the same word being placed in one instance before -a word beginning with a vowel and in the other before a consonant, -that is to say, in different external conditions. But it won’t do -to identify the two things: in the latter case we really have something -external or mechanical, and here we may rightly use -the expression ‘phonetic condition,’ but the difference between -a strongly and a weakly stressed form of the same word depends -on something internal, on the very soul of the word. Stress is -not what the usual way of marking it in writing and printing might -lead us to think—something that hangs outside or above the -word—but is at least as important an element of the word as -the ‘speech sounds’ which go to make it up. Stress alternation -in a sentence cannot consequently be reckoned a ‘phonetic -condition’ of the same order as the initial sound of the next word. -If we say that the different treatment of the vowel seen in <i>one</i> -and <i>an</i> or <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">moi</i> and <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">me</i> is occasioned by varying degrees of stress, -we have ‘explained’ the secondary sound change only, but not -the primary change, which is that of stress itself, and that -change is due to the different significance of the word under varying -circumstances, i.e. to its varying value for the purposes of the -exchange of ideas. Over and above mechanical principles we -have here and elsewhere psychological principles, which no one -can disregard with impunity.</p> - - -<h4><a id="XIV_12"></a>XIV.—§ 12. Non-phonetic Changes.</h4> - -<p>Considerations of ease play an important part in all departments -of language development. It is impossible to draw a sharp -line between phonetic and syntactic phenomena. We have what -might be termed prosiopesis when the speaker begins, or thinks -he begins, to articulate, but produces no audible sound till one -or two syllables after the beginning of what he intended to say. -This phonetically is ‘aphesis,’ but in many cases leads to the -omission of whole words; this may become a regular speech habit, -more particularly in the case of certain set phrases, e.g. (Good) -<i>morning</i> / (Do you) <i>see</i>? / (Will) <i>that do?</i> / (I shall) <i>see you -again this afternoon</i>; Fr. <span lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">(na)<i>turellement</i> / (Je ne me) <i>rappelle -plus</i></span>, etc.</p> - -<p>On the other hand, we have aposiopesis if the speaker does -not finish his sentence, either because he hesitates which word -to employ or because he notices that the hearer has already caught -his meaning. Hence such syntactic shortenings as <i>at Brown’s</i> -(house, or shop, or whatever it may be), which may then be -extended to other places in the sentence; the <i>grocer’s</i> was closed -/ <i>St. Paul’s</i> is very grand, etc. Similar abbreviations due to<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_274" id="Page_274">[274]</a></span> -the natural disinclination to use more circumstantial expressions -than are necessary to convey one’s meaning are seen when, instead -of <i>my straw hat</i>, one says simply <i>my straw</i>, if it is clear to one’s -hearers that one is talking of a hat; thus <i>clay</i> comes to be used -for <i>clay pipe</i>, <i>return</i> for <i>return ticket</i> (‘We’d better take returns’) -<i>the Haymarket</i> for <i>the Haymarket Theatre</i>, etc. Sometimes these -shortenings become so common as to be scarcely any longer felt -as such, e.g. <i>rifle</i>, <i>landau</i>, <i>bugle</i>, for <i>rifle gun</i>, <i>landau carriage</i>, <i>bugle -horn</i> (further examples MEG ii. 8. 9). In Maupassant (<cite lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Bel Ami</cite> -81) I find the following scrap of conversation which illustrates -the same principle in another domain: “<span lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Voilà six mois que je -suis <i>employé aux bureaux du chemin de fer du Nord</i></span>.” “<span lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Mais -comment diable n’as-tu pas trouvé mieux qu’une place <i>d’employé -au Nord</i>?</span>”<a name="FNanchor_64_64" id="FNanchor_64_64"></a><a href="#Footnote_64_64" class="fnanchor">[64]</a></p> - -<p>The tendency to economize effort also manifests itself when -the general ending <i>-er</i> is used instead of a more specific expression: -<i>sleeper</i> for <i>sleeping-car</i>; <i>bedder</i> at college for <i>bedmaker</i>; <i>speecher</i>, -<i>footer</i>, <i>brekker</i> (Harrow) for <i>speech-day</i>, <i>football</i>, <i>breakfast</i>, etc. -Thus also when some noun or verb of a vague or general meaning -is used because one will not take the trouble to think of the exact -expression required, very often <i>thing</i> (sometimes extended <i>thingumbob</i>, -cf. Dan. <i lang="da" xml:lang="da">tingest</i>, G. <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">dingsda</i>), Fr. <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">chose</i>, <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">machin</i> (even in place -of a personal name); further, the verb <i>do</i> or <i>fix</i> (this especially -in America). In some cases this tendency may permanently -affect the meaning of a common noun which has to serve so -often instead of a specific name that at last it acquires a special -signification; thus, <i>corn</i> in England = ‘wheat,’ in Ireland = ‘oats,’ -in America = ‘maize,’ <i>deer</i>, orig. ‘animal,’ Fr. <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">herbe</i>, now ‘grass,’ -etc. As many people, either from ignorance or from carelessness, -are far from being precise in thought and expression—they “Mean -not, but blunder round about a meaning”—words come to be -applied in senses unknown to former generations, and some of -these senses may gradually become fixed and established. In -some cases the final result of such want of precision may even be -beneficial; thus English at first had no means of expressing -futurity in verbs. Then it became more and more customary -to say ‘he will come,’ which at first meant ‘he has the will -to come,’ to express his future coming apart from his volition—thus, -also, ‘it will rain,’ etc. Similarly ‘I shall go,’ which<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_275" id="Page_275">[275]</a></span> -originally meant ‘I am obliged to go,’ was used in a less -accurate way, where no obligation was thought of, and thus -the language acquired something which is at any rate a makeshift -for a future tense of the verb. But considerations of space -prevent me from diving too deeply into questions of semantic -change.</p> - - -<div class="chapter"> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_276" id="Page_276">[276]</a></span></p> - - - - -<h3 class="nobreak"><a name="CHAPTER_XV" id="CHAPTER_XV">CHAPTER XV</a><br /> - -<span class="larger">CAUSES OF CHANGE—<i>continued</i></span></h3> -</div> - -<div class="blockquot chaptersummary"> - -<p>§ 1. Emotional Exaggerations. § 2. Euphony. § 3. Organic Influences. -§ 4. Lapses and Blendings. § 5. Latitude of Correctness. § 6. Equidistant -and Convergent Changes. § 7. Homophones. § 8. Significative -Sounds preserved. § 9. Divergent Changes and Analogy. -§ 10. Extension of Sound Laws. § 11. Spreading of Sound Change. -§ 12. Reaction. § 13. Sound Laws and Etymological Science. § 14. -Conclusion.</p></div> - - -<h4><a id="XV_1"></a>XV.—§ 1. Emotional Exaggerations.</h4> - -<p>In the preceding chapter we have dwelt at great length on those -changes which tend to render articulations easier and more convenient. -But, important as they are, these are not the only changes -that speech sounds undergo: there are other moods than that -of ordinary listless everyday conversation, and they may lead to -modifications of pronunciation which are different from and may -even be in direct opposition to those mentioned or hinted at above. -Thus, anger or other violent emotions may cause emphatic utterance, -in which, e.g., stops may be much more strongly aspirated -than they are in usual quiet parlance; even French, which has -normally unaspirated (‘sharp’) [t] and [k], under such circumstances -may aspirate them strongly—‘<i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Mais taisez-vous donc!</i>’ -Military commands are characterized by peculiar emphasizings, -even in some cases distortions of sounds and words. Pomposity -and consequential airs are manifested in the treatment of speech -sounds as well as in other gestures. Irony, scoffing, banter, -amiable chaffing—each different mood or temper leaves its traces -on enunciation. Actors and orators will often use stronger articulations -than are strictly necessary to avoid those misunderstandings -or that unintelligibility which may ensue from slipshod or -indistinct pronunciation.<a name="FNanchor_65_65" id="FNanchor_65_65"></a><a href="#Footnote_65_65" class="fnanchor">[65]</a> In short, anyone who will take careful -note of the way in which people do really talk will find in the most -everyday conversation as well as on more solemn occasions the -greatest variety of such modifications and deviations from what -might be termed ‘normal’ pronunciation; these, however, pass<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_277" id="Page_277">[277]</a></span> -unnoticed under ordinary circumstances, when the attention is -directed exclusively to the contents and general purport of the -spoken words. A vowel or a consonant will be made a trifle -shorter or longer than usual, the lips will open a little too much, -an [e] will approach [æ] or [i], the off-glide after a final [t] will -sound nearly as [s], the closure of a [d] will be made so loosely -that a little air will escape and the sound therefore will be approximately -a [ð] or a weak fricative point [r], etc. Most of these -modifications are so small that they cannot be represented by -letters, even by those of a very exact phonetic alphabet, but they -exist all the same, and are by no means insignificant to those who -want to understand the real essence of speech and of linguistic -change, for life is built up of such minutiæ. The great majority -of such alterations are of course made quite unconsciously, but -by the side of these we must recognize that there are some -individuals who more or less consciously affect a certain mode of -enunciation, either from artistic motives, because they think it -beautiful, or simply to ‘show off’—and sometimes such pronunciations -may set the fashion and be widely imitated -(cf. below, p. <a href="#Page_292">292</a>).</p> - -<p>Tender emotions may lead to certain lengthenings of sounds. -The intensifying effect of lengthening was noticed by A. Gill, -Milton’s teacher, in 1621, see Jiriczek’s reprint, p. 48: “<span lang="la" xml:lang="la">Atque vt -Hebræi, ad ampliorem vocis alicuius significationem, syllabas -adaugent</span> [cf. here below, Ch. XX § 9]; <span lang="la" xml:lang="la">sic nos syllabarum tempora: -vt, <i>grët</i></span> [the diæresis denotes vowel-length] <span lang="la" xml:lang="la">magnus, <i>grëet</i> ingens; -<i>monstrus</i> prodigiosum, <i>mönstrus</i> valde prodigiosum, <i>möönstrus</i> -prodigiosum adeo vt hominem stupidet</span>.” Cf. also the lengthening -in the exclamation <i>God!</i>, by novelists sometimes written <i>Gawd</i> -or <i>Gord</i>. But it is curious that the same emotional lengthening -will sometimes affect a consonant (or first part of a diphthong) -in a position in which otherwise we always have a short quantity; -thus, Danish clergymen, when speaking with unction, will lengthen -the [l] of <i lang="da" xml:lang="da">glæde</i> ‘joy,’ which is ridiculed by comic writers through -the unphonetic spelling <i lang="da" xml:lang="da">ge-læde</i>; and in the same way I find in -Kipling (<cite>Stalky</cite> 119): “We’ll make it a <i>be-autiful</i> house,” and in -O. Henry (<cite>Roads of Destiny</cite> 133): “A regular Paradise Lost for -elegance of scenery and <i>be-yooty</i> of geography.” I suppose that -the spellings <i>ber-luddy</i> and <i>bee-luddy</i>, which I find in recent novels, -are meant to indicate the pronunciation [bl·-ʌdi], thus the exact -counterpart of the Danish example. An unstressed vowel before -the stressed syllable is similarly lengthened in “Dee-lightful -couple!” (Shaw, <cite>Doctor’s Dilemma</cite> 41); American girl students -will often say ['di·liʃ] for <i>delicious</i>.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_278" id="Page_278">[278]</a></span></p> - - -<h4>XV.—§ 2. Euphony.</h4> - -<p>It was not uncommon in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries -to ascribe phonetic changes to a desire for euphony, a view -which is represented in Bopp’s earliest works. But as early as -1821 Bredsdorff says that “people will always find that euphonious -which they are accustomed to hear: considerations of euphony -consequently will not cause changes in a language, but rather -make for keeping it unchanged. Those changes which are generally -supposed to be based on euphony are due chiefly to convenience, -in some instances to care of distinctness.” This is quite -true, but scarcely the whole truth. Euphony depends not only -on custom, but even more on ease of articulation and on ease of -perception: what requires intricate or difficult movements of -the organs of speech will always be felt as cacophonous, and so -will anything that is indistinct or blurred. But nations, as well -as individuals, have an artistic feeling for these things in different -degrees, and that may influence the phonetic character of a language, -though perhaps chiefly in its broad features, while it may -be difficult to point out any particular details in phonological -history which have been thus worked upon. There can be no -doubt that the artistic feeling is much more developed in the French -than in the English nation, and we find in French fewer obscure -vowels and more clearly articulated consonants than in English -(cf. also my remarks on French accent, GS § 28).</p> - - -<h4>XV.—§ 3. Organic Influences.</h4> - -<p>Some modifications of speech sounds are due to the fact that -the organs of speech are used for other purposes than that of -speaking. We all know the effect of someone trying to speak -with his mouth full of food, or with a cigar or a pipe hanging -between his lips and to some extent impeding their action. -Various emotions are expressed by facial movements which may -interfere with the production of ordinary speech sounds. A child -that is crying speaks differently from one that is smiling or laughing. -A smile requires a retraction of the corners of the mouth -and a partial opening of the lips, and thus impedes the formation -of that lip-closure which is an essential part of the ordinary [m]; -hence most people when smiling will substitute the labiodental <i>m</i>, -which to the ear greatly resembles the bilabial [m]. A smile will -also often modify the front-round vowel [y] so as to make it -approach [i]. Sweet may be right in supposing that “the habit -of speaking with a constant smile or grin” is the reason for the -Cockney unrounding of the vowel in [nau] for <i>no</i>. Schuchardt<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_279" id="Page_279">[279]</a></span> -(<cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Zs. f. rom. Phil.</cite> 5. 314) says that in Andalusian <i lang="es" xml:lang="es">quia!</i> instead -of <i lang="es" xml:lang="es">ca!</i> the lips, under the influence of a certain emotion, are drawn -scoffingly aside. Inversely, the rounding in <i>Josu!</i> instead of <i>Jesu!</i> -is due to wonder (ib.); and exactly in the same way we have -the surprised or pitying exclamation <i lang="da" xml:lang="da">jøses!</i> from <i lang="da" xml:lang="da">Jesus</i> in Danish. -Compare also the rounding in Dan. and G. [nø·] for [ne·, nɛ·] (<i>nej</i>, -<i>nein</i>). Lundell mentions that in Swedish a caressing <i lang="sv" xml:lang="sv">lilla vän</i> -often becomes <i lang="sv" xml:lang="sv">lylla vön</i>, and I have often observed the same -rounding in Dan. <i lang="da" xml:lang="da">min lille ven</i>. Schuchardt also mentions an -Italian [ʃ] instead of [s] under the influence of pain or anger (<i lang="it" xml:lang="it">mi -duole la teʃta</i>; <i lang="it" xml:lang="it">ti do uno ʃchiaffo</i>); a Danish parallel is the frequent -[ʃluð’ər] for <i lang="da" xml:lang="da">sludder</i> ‘nonsense.’ We are here verging on the -subject of the symbolic value of speech sounds, which will occupy -us in a later chapter (<a href="#CHAPTER_XX">XX</a>).</p> - -<p>Observe, too, how people will pronounce under the influence -of alcohol: the tongue is not under control and is incapable of -accurately forming the closure necessary for [t], which therefore -becomes [r], and the thin rill necessary for [s], which therefore -comes to resemble [ʃ]; there is also a general tendency to run -sounds and syllables together.<a name="FNanchor_66_66" id="FNanchor_66_66"></a><a href="#Footnote_66_66" class="fnanchor">[66]</a></p> - - -<h4><a id="XV_4"></a>XV.—§ 4. Lapses and Blendings.</h4> - -<p>All these deviations are due to influences from what is outside -the sphere of language as such. But we now come to something -of the greatest importance in the life of language, the fact, namely, -that deviations from the usual or normal pronunciation are very -often due to causes inside the language itself, either by lingering -reminiscences of what has just been spoken or by anticipation of -something that the speaker is just on the point of pronouncing. -The process of speech is a very complicated one, and while one -thing is being said, the mind is continually active in preparing -what has to be said next, arranging the ideas and fashioning the -linguistic expression in all its details. Each word is a succession -of sounds, and for each of these a complicated set of orders has -to be issued from the brain to the various speech organs. Sometimes -these get mixed up, and a command is sent down to one -organ a moment too early or too late. The inclination to make -mistakes naturally increases with the number of identical or<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_280" id="Page_280">[280]</a></span> -similar sounds in close proximity. This is well known from those -‘jaw-breaking’ tongue-tests with which people amuse themselves -in all countries and of which I need give only one typical -specimen:</p> - -<div class="poetry-container"><div class="poetry"><div class="stanza"> - <div class="verse">She sells seashells on the seashore,</div> - <div class="verse">The shells she sells are seashells, I’m sure,</div> - <div class="verse">For if she sells seashells on the seashore,</div> - <div class="verse">Then I’m sure she sells seashore shells.</div> -</div></div></div> - -<p>If the mind is occupied with one sound while another is being -pronounced, and thus either runs in advance of or lags behind -what should be its immediate business, the linguistic result may -be of various kinds. The simplest case of influencing is assimilation -of two contiguous sounds, which we have already considered -from a different point of view. Next we have assimilative influence -on a sound at a distance, as when we lapse into <i>she shells</i> -instead of <i>sea shells</i> or <i>she sells</i>; such is Fr. <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">chercher</i> for older -<i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">sercher</i> (whence E. <i>search</i>) from Lat. <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">circare</i>, Dan. and G. vulgar -<i>ʃerʃant</i> for <i>sergeant</i>; a curious mixed case is the pronunciation of -<i>transition</i> as [træn'siʒən]: the normal development is [træn'ziʃən], -but the voice-articulation of the two hissing sounds is reversed -(possibly under accessory influence from the numerous words in -which we have [træns] with [s], and from words ending in [iʒən], -such as <i>vision</i>, <i>division</i>). Further examples of such assimilation -at a distance or consonant-harmonization (<i>malmsey</i> from <i>malvesie</i>, -etc.) may be found in my LPh 11. 7, where there are also examples -of the corresponding harmonizings of vowels: Fr. <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">camarade</i>, It. -<i lang="it" xml:lang="it">uguale</i>, <i lang="it" xml:lang="it">Braganza</i>, from <i>camerade</i>, <i>eguale</i>, <i>Brigantia</i>, etc. In Ugro-Finnic -and Turkish this harmony of vowels has been raised to -a principle pervading the whole structure of the language, as -seen, e.g., most clearly in the varying plural endings in Yakut -<i>agalar</i>, <i>äsälär</i>, <i>ogolor</i>, <i>dörölör</i>, ‘fathers, bears, children, muzzles.’</p> - -<p>What escapes at the wrong place and causes confusion may -be a part of the same word or of a following word; as examples -of the latter case may be given a few of the lapses recorded in -Meringer and Mayer’s <cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Versprechen und Verlesen</cite> (Stuttgart, 1895): -instead of saying <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">Lateinisches lehnwort</i> Meringer said <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">Latenisches -...</i> and then corrected himself; <i>paster noster</i> instead of -<i>pater noster</i>; <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">wenn das wesser ... wetter wieder besser ist</i>. This -phenomenon is termed in Danish <i lang="da" xml:lang="da">at bakke snagvendt</i> (for <i lang="da" xml:lang="da">snakke -bagvendt</i>) and in English <i>Spoonerism</i>, from an Oxford don, W. A. -Spooner, about whom many comic lapses are related (“Don’t -you ever feel a half-warmed fish” instead of “half-formed -wish”).</p> - -<p>The simplest and most frequently occurring cases in which -the order for a sound is issued too early or too late are those trans<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_281" id="Page_281">[281]</a></span>positions -of two sounds which the linguists term ‘metatheses.’ -They occur most frequently with <i>s</i> in connexion with a stop (<i>wasp</i>, -<i>waps</i>; <i>ask</i>, <i>ax</i>) and with <i>r</i> (chiefly, perhaps exclusively, the trilled -form of the sound) and a vowel (<i>third</i>, OE. <i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">þridda</i>). A more complicated -instance is seen in Fr. <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">trésor</i> for <i>tésor</i>, <i>thesaurum</i>. If the -mind does not realize how far the vocal organs have got, the result -may be the skipping of some sound or sounds; this is particularly -likely to happen when the same sound has to be repeated at some -little distance, and we then have the phenomenon termed ‘haplology,’ -as in <i>eighteen</i>, OE. <i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">eahtatiene</i>, and in the frequent pronunciation -<i>probly</i> for <i>probably</i>, Fr. <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">contrôle</i>, <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">idolatrie</i> for <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">contrerôle</i>, -<i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">idololatrie</i>, Lat. <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">stipendium</i> for <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">stipipendium</i>, and numerous similar -instances in every language (LPh 11. 9). Sometimes a sound may -be skipped because the mind is confused through the fact that -the same sound has to be pronounced a little later; thus the old -Gothonic word for ‘bird’ (G. <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">vogel</i>, OE. <i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">fugol</i>; E. <i>fowl</i> with a -modified meaning) is derived from the verb <i>fly</i>, OE. <i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">fleogan</i>, and -originally had some form like *<i>fluglo</i> (OE. had an adj. <i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">flugol</i>); in -recent times <i>flugelman</i> (G. <span lang="de" xml:lang="de">flügelmann</span>) has become <i>fugleman</i>. -It. has <i>Federigo</i> for <i>Frederigo</i>—thus the exactly opposite result of -what has been brought about in <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">trésor</i> from the same kind of mental -confusion.</p> - -<p>When words are often repeated in succession, sounds from -one of them will often creep into another, as is seen very often in -numerals: the nasal which was found in the old forms for 7, 9 -and 10 and is still seen in E. <i>seven</i>, <i>nine</i>, <i>ten</i>, has no place in the -word for 8, and accordingly we have in the ordinal ON. <i lang="non" xml:lang="non">sjaundi</i>, -<i lang="non" xml:lang="non">átti</i>, <i lang="non" xml:lang="non">níundi</i>, <i lang="non" xml:lang="non">tíundi</i>, but already in ON. we find <i lang="non" xml:lang="non">áttandi</i> by the side -of <i lang="non" xml:lang="non">átti</i>, and in Dan. the present-day forms are <i lang="da" xml:lang="da">syvende</i>, <i lang="da" xml:lang="da">ottende</i>, -<i lang="da" xml:lang="da">niende</i>, <i lang="da" xml:lang="da">tiende</i>; in the same way OFr. had <i lang="fro" xml:lang="fro">sedme</i>, <i lang="fro" xml:lang="fro">uidme</i>, <i lang="fro" xml:lang="fro">noefme</i>, -<i lang="fro" xml:lang="fro">disme</i> (which have all now disappeared with the exception of <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">dîme</i> -as a substantive). In the names of the months we had the same -formation of a series in OFr.: <i lang="fro" xml:lang="fro">septembre</i>, <i lang="fro" xml:lang="fro">octembre</i>, <i lang="fro" xml:lang="fro">novembre</i>, <i lang="fro" xml:lang="fro">decembre</i>, -but learned influence has reinstated <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">octobre</i>. G. <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">elf</i> for older -<i lang="de" xml:lang="de">eilf</i> owes its vowel to the following <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">zwelf</i>; and as now the latter -has given way to <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">zwölf</i> (the vowel being rounded in consequence -of the <i>w</i>) many dialects count <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">zehn</i>, <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">ölf</i>, <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">zwölf</i>. Similarly, it seems -to be due to their frequent occurrence in close contact with the -verbal forms in <i>-no</i> that the Italian plural pronouns <i lang="it" xml:lang="it">egli</i>, <i lang="it" xml:lang="it">elle</i> are -extended with that ending: <i lang="it" xml:lang="it">eglino amano</i>, <i lang="it" xml:lang="it">elleno dicono</i>. Diez -compares the curious Bavarian <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">wo-st bist</i>, <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">dem-st gehörst</i>, etc., in -which the personal ending of the verb is transferred to some -other word with which it has nothing to do (on this phenomenon -see Herzog, <cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Streitfragen d. roman. phil.</cite> 48, Buergel Goodwin, -<cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Umgangsspr. in Südbayern</cite> 99).</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_282" id="Page_282">[282]</a></span></p> - -<p>In speaking, the mind is occupied not only with the words -one is already pronouncing or knows that one is going to -pronounce, but also with the ideas which one has to express -but for which one has not yet chosen the linguistic -form. In many cases two synonyms will rise to the consciousness -at the same time, and the hesitation between them -will often result in a compromise which contains the head -of one and the tail of another word. It is evident that this -process of blending is intimately related to those we have just -been considering; see the detailed treatment in Ch. XVI § <a href="#XVI_6">6</a>.</p> - -<p>Syntactical blends are very frequent. Hesitation between -<i>different from</i> and <i>other than</i> will result in <i>different than</i> or <i>another -from</i>, and similarly we occasionally find <i>another to</i>, <i>different to</i>, -<i>contrary than</i>, <i>contrary from</i>, <i>opposite from</i>, <i>anywhere than</i>. After -a clause introduced by <i>hardly</i> or <i>scarcely</i> the normal conjunction -is <i>when</i>, but sometimes we find <i>than</i>, because that is regular after -the synonymous <i>no sooner</i>.</p> - - -<h4>XV.—§ 5. Latitude of Correctness.</h4> - -<p>It is a natural consequence of the essence of human speech -and the way in which it is transmitted from generation to generation -that we have everywhere to recognize a certain latitude of -correctness, alike in the significations in which the words may -be used, in syntax and in pronunciation. The nearer a speaker -keeps to the centre of what is established or usual, the easier will -it be to understand him. If he is ‘eccentric’ on one point or -another, the result may not always be that he conveys no idea -at all, or that he is misunderstood, but often merely that he is -understood with some little difficulty, or that his hearers have a -momentary feeling of something odd in his choice of words, or -expressions or pronunciation. In many cases, when someone -has overstepped the boundaries of what is established, his hearers -do not at once catch his meaning and have to gather it from the -whole context of what follows: not unfrequently the meaning -of something you have heard as an incomprehensible string of -syllables will suddenly flash upon you without your knowing how -it has happened. Misunderstandings are, of course, most liable -to occur if words of different meaning, which in themselves would -give sense in the same collocation, are similar in sound: in that -case a trifling alteration of one sound, which in other words would -create no difficulty at all, may prove pernicious. Now, what is -the bearing of these considerations on the question of sound -changes?</p> - -<p>The latitude of correctness is very far from being the same in<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_283" id="Page_283">[283]</a></span> -different languages. Some sounds in each language move within -narrow boundaries, while others have a much larger field assigned -to them; each language is punctilious in some, but not in all -points. Deviations which in one language would be considered -trifling, in another would be intolerable perversions. In German, -for instance, a wide margin is allowed for the (local and individual) -pronunciation of the diphthong written <i>eu</i> or <i>äu</i> (in <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">eule</i>, <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">träume</i>): -it may begin with [ɔ] or [œ] or even [æ, a], and it may end in [i], -or the corresponding rounded vowel [y], or one of the mid front -vowels, rounded or not, it does not matter much; the diphthong -is recognized or acknowledged in many shapes, while the similar -diphthong in English, as in <i>toy</i>, <i>voice</i>, allows a far less range of -variation (for other examples see LPh 16. 22).</p> - -<p>Now, it is very important to keep in mind that there is an intimate -connexion between phonetic latitude and the significations -of words. If there are in a language a great many pairs of words -which are identical in sound except for, say, the difference between -[e·] and [i·] (or between long and short [i], or between voiced [b] -and voiceless [p], or between a high and a low tone, etc.), then -the speakers of that language necessarily will make that distinction -with great precision, as otherwise too many misunderstandings -would result. If, on the other hand, no mistakes worth speaking -of would ensue, there is not the same inducement to be careful. -In English, and to a somewhat lesser degree in French, it is easy -to make up long lists of pairs of words where the sole difference -is between voice and voicelessness in the final consonant (<i>cab</i> <i>cap</i>, -<i>bad</i> <i>bat</i>, <i>frog</i> <i>frock</i>, etc.); hence final [b] and [p], [d] and [t], [g] -and [k] are kept apart conscientiously, while German possesses -very few such pairs of words; in German, consequently, the -natural tendency to make final consonants voiceless has not been -checked, and all final stopped consonants have now become voiceless. -In initial and medial position, too, there are very few examples -in German of the same distinction (see the lists, LPh 6. 78), -and this circumstance makes us understand why Germans are -so apt to efface the difference between [b, d, g] and [p, t, k]. On -the other hand, the distinction between a long and a short vowel is -kept much more effectively in German than in French, because -in German ten or twenty times as many words would be liable to -confusion through pronouncing a long instead of a short vowel -or vice versa. In French no two words are kept apart by means -of stress, as in English or German; so the rule laid down in -grammars that the stress falls on the final syllable of the word is -very frequently broken through for rhythmic and other reasons. -Other similar instances might easily be advanced.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_284" id="Page_284">[284]</a></span></p> - - -<h4>XV.—§ 6. Equidistant and Convergent Changes.</h4> - -<p>Phonetic shifts are of two kinds: the shifted sound may be -identical with one already found in the language, or it may be a -new sound. In the former, but not in the latter kind, fresh possibilities -of confusions and misunderstandings may arise. Now, in -some cases one sound (or series of sounds) marches into a position -which has just been abandoned by another sound (or series of -sounds), which has in its turn shifted into some other place. A -notable instance is the old Gothonic consonant shift: Aryan <i>b</i>, -<i>d</i>, <i>g</i> cannot have become Gothonic <i>p</i>, <i>t</i>, <i>k</i> till after primitive <i>p</i>, <i>t</i>, <i>k</i> -had already become fricatives [f, þ, x (h)], for had the shift taken -place before, intolerable confusion would have reigned in all parts -of the vocabulary. Another instructive example is seen in the -history of English long vowels. Not till OE. long <i>a</i> had been -rounded into something like [ɔ·] (OE. <i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">stan</i>, ME. <i lang="enm" xml:lang="enm">stoon</i>, <i lang="enm" xml:lang="enm">stone</i>) could -a new long <i>a</i> develop, chiefly through lengthening of an old short -<i>a</i> in certain positions. Somewhat later we witness the great vowel-raising -through which the phonetic value of the long vowels -(written all the time in essentially the same way) has been constantly -on the move and yet the distance between them has been -kept, so that no confusions worth speaking of have ever occurred. -If we here leave out of account the rounded back vowels and speak -only of front vowels, the shift may be thus represented through -typical examples (the first and the last columns show the spelling, -the others the sounds):</p> - - -<div class="center"> -<table class="left" border="0" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" summary=""> -<tr><td colspan="2">Middle English.</td><td> <span class="spaced">Elizabethan.</span></td><td colspan="2">Present English.</td></tr> -<tr><td>(1) <i lang="enm" xml:lang="enm">bite</i></td><td>bi·tə</td><td><span class="spaced">beit</span></td><td>bait</td><td><i>bite</i></td></tr> -<tr><td>(2) <i lang="enm" xml:lang="enm">bete</i></td><td>be·tə</td><td><span class="spaced">bi·t</span></td><td>bi·t</td><td><i>beet</i></td></tr> -<tr><td>(3) <i lang="enm" xml:lang="enm">bete</i></td><td>bɛ·tə</td><td><span class="spaced">be·t</span></td><td>bi·t</td><td><i>beat</i></td></tr> -<tr><td>(4) <i lang="enm" xml:lang="enm">abate</i></td><td>a'ba·tə</td><td><span class="spaced">ə'bæ·t</span></td><td>ə'beit</td><td><i>abate</i></td></tr> -</table></div> - -<p>When the sound of (2) was raised into [i·], the sound of (1) -had already left that position and had been diphthongized, and -when the sound of (3) was raised from an open into a close <i>e</i>, (2) -had already become [i·]; (4) could not become [æ·] or [ɛ·] till -(3) had become a comparatively close <i>e</i> sound. The four vowels, -as it were, climbed the ladder without ever reaching each other—a -climbing which took centuries and in each case implied intermediate -steps not indicated in our survey. No clashings could -occur so long as each category kept its distance from the sounds -above and below, and thus we find that the Elizabethans as -scrupulously as Chaucer kept the four classes of words apart in -their rimes. But in the seventeenth century class (3) was raised,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_285" id="Page_285">[285]</a></span> -and as no corresponding change had taken place with (2), the -two classes have now fallen together with the single sound [i·]. -This entails a certain number of homophones such as had not been -created through the preceding equidistant changes.</p> - - -<h4><a id="XV_7"></a>XV.—§ 7. Homophones.</h4> - -<p>The reader here will naturally object that the fact of new -homophones arising through this vowel change goes against the -theory that the necessity of certain distinctions can keep in check -the tendency to phonetic changes. But homophones do not -always imply frequent misunderstandings: some homophones -are more harmless than others. Now, if we look at the list of the -homophones created by this raising of the close <i>e</i> (MEG i. 11. 74), -we shall soon discover that very few mistakes of any consequence -could arise through the obliteration of the distinction between -this vowel and the previously existing [i·]. For substantives and -verbal forms (like <i>bean</i> and <i>been</i>, <i>beet</i> <i>beat</i>, <i>flea</i> <i>flee</i>, <i>heel</i> <i>heal</i>, <i>leek</i> -<i>leak</i>, <i>meat</i> <i>meet</i>, <i>reed</i> <i>read</i>, <i>sea</i> <i>see</i>, <i>seam</i> <i>seem</i>, <i>steel</i> <i>steal</i>), or substantives -and adjectives (like <i>deer</i> <i>dear</i>, <i>leaf</i> <i>lief</i>, <i>shear</i> <i>sheer</i>, <i>week</i> -<i>weak</i>) will generally be easily distinguished by their position in -the sentence; nor will a plural such as <i>feet</i> be often mistaken for -the singular <i>feat</i>. Actual misunderstandings of any importance -are only imaginable when the two words belong to the same ‘part -of speech,’ but of such pairs we meet only few: <i>beach</i> <i>beech</i>, <i>breach</i> -<i>breech</i>, <i>mead</i> <i>meed</i>, <i>peace</i> <i>piece</i>, <i>peal</i> <i>peel</i>, <i>quean</i> <i>queen</i>, <i>seal</i> <i>ceil</i>, -<i>wean</i> <i>ween</i>, <i>wheal</i> <i>wheel</i>. I think the judicious reader will agree -with me that confusions due to these words being pronounced -in the same way will be few and far between, and one understands -that they cannot have been powerful enough to prevent hundreds -of other words from having their sound changed. An effective -prevention can only be expected when the falling together in -sound would seriously impair the understanding of many sentences.</p> - -<p>It is, moreover, interesting to note how many of the words -which were made identical with others through this change were -already rare at the time or have at any rate become obsolete -since: this is true of <i>breech</i>, <i>lief</i>, <i>meed</i>, <i>mete</i> (adj.), <i>quean</i>, <i>weal</i>, -<i>wheal</i>, <i>ween</i> and perhaps a few others. Now, obsolescence of some -words is always found in connexion with such convergent sound -changes. In some cases the word had already become rare before -the change in sound took place, and then it is obvious that it cannot -have offered serious resistance to the change that was setting in. -In other cases the dying out of a word must be looked upon as -a consequence of the sound change which had actually taken place. -Many scholars are now inclined to see in phonetic coalescence<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_286" id="Page_286">[286]</a></span> -one of the chief reasons why words fall into disuse, see, e.g., -Liebisch (PBB XXIII, 228, many German examples in O. Weise, -<i>Unsere Mutterspr.</i>, 3d ed., 206) and Gilliéron, <cite lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">La faillite de l’étymologie -phonétique</cite> (Neuveville, 1919—a book whose sensational -title is hardly justified by its contents).</p> - -<p>The drawbacks of homophones<a name="FNanchor_67_67" id="FNanchor_67_67"></a><a href="#Footnote_67_67" class="fnanchor">[67]</a> are counteracted in various -ways. Very often a synonym steps forward, as when <i>lad</i> or <i>boy</i> -is used in nearly all English dialects to supplant <i>son</i>, which has -become identical in sound with <i>sun</i> (cf. above p. <a href="#Page_120">120</a>, a childish -instance). Very often it becomes usual to avoid misunderstandings -through some addition, as when we say <i>the sole of her foot</i>, -because <i>her sole</i> might be taken to mean <i>her soul</i>, or when the -French say <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">un dé à coudre</i> or <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">un dé à jouer</i> (cf. E. <i>minister of religion</i> -and <i>cabinet minister</i>, the <i>right-hand</i> corner, the <i>subject-matter</i>, -where the same expedient is used to obviate ambiguities arisen -from other causes). Chinese, of course, is the classical example -of a language abounding in homophones caused by convergent -sound changes, and it is highly interesting to study the various -ways in which that language has remedied the resulting drawbacks, -see, e.g., B. Karlgren, <cite lang="sv" xml:lang="sv">Ordet och pennan i Mittens rike</cite> (Stockholm, -1918), p. 49 ff. But on the whole we must say that the ways -in which these phonetic inconveniences are counteracted are the -same as those in which speakers react against misunderstandings -arising from semantic or syntactic causes: as soon as they perceive -that their meaning is not apprehended they turn their phrases in -a different way, choosing some other expression for their thought, -and by this means language is gradually freed from ambiguity.</p> -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_287" id="Page_287">[287]</a></span></p> - -<h4><a id="XV_8"></a>XV.—§ 8. Significative Sounds preserved.</h4> - -<p>My contention that the significative side of language has in -so far exercised an influence on phonetic development that the -possibility of many misunderstandings may effectually check -the coalescence of two hitherto distinct sounds should not be -identified with one of the tenets of the older school (Curtius included) -against which the ‘young grammarians’ raised an -emphatic protest, namely, that a tendency to preserve significative -sounds and syllables might produce exceptions to the -normal course of phonetic change. Delbrück and his friends may -be right in much of what they said against Curtius—for instance, -when he explained the retention of <i>i</i> in some Greek optative forms -through a consciousness of the <em>original</em> meaning of this suffix; but -their denial was in its way just as exaggerated as his affirmation. -It cannot justly be urged against the influence of signification that -a preservation of a sound on that account would only be imaginable -on the supposition that the speaker was conscious of a -threatened sound change and wanted to avoid it. One need not -suppose a speaker to be on his guard against a ‘sound law’: -the only thing required is that he should feel, or be made to feel, -that he is not understood when he speaks indistinctly; if on that -account he has to repeat his words he will naturally be careful -to pronounce the sound he has skipped or slurred, and may even -be tempted to exaggerate it a little.</p> - -<p>There do not seem to be many quite unimpeachable examples -of words which have received exceptional phonetic treatment to -obviate misunderstandings arising from homophony; other explanations -(analogy from other forms of the same word, etc.) can generally -be alleged more or less plausibly. But this does seem to be -the easiest explanation of the fact that the E. preposition <i>on</i> has -always the full vowel [ɔ], though in nine cases out of ten it is weakly -stressed and though all the other analogous prepositions (<i>to</i>, <i>for</i>, -<i>of</i>, <i>at</i>) in the corresponding weak positions in sentences are generally -pronounced with the ‘neutral’ vowel [ə]. But if <i>on</i> were -similarly pronounced, ambiguity would very often result from its -phonetic identity with the weak forms of the extremely frequent -little words <i>an</i> (the indefinite article) and <i>and</i> (possibly also <i>in</i>), -not to mention the great number of [ən]s in words like <i>drunken</i>, -<i>shaken</i>, <i>deepen</i>, etc., where the forms without <i>-en</i> also exist. With -the preposition <i>upon</i> the same considerations do not hold good, -hence the frequency of the pronunciation [əpən] in weak position. -Considerations of clearness have also led to the disuse of the formerly -frequent form <i>o</i> (<i>o’</i>) which was the ‘natural’ development -of each of the two prepositions <i>on</i> and <i>of</i>. The form written <i>a</i><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_288" id="Page_288">[288]</a></span> -survives only in some fossilized combinations like <i>ashore</i>; in -several others it has now disappeared (<i>set the clock going</i>, formerly -<i>a-going</i>, etc.).</p> - -<p>Sometimes, when all ordinary words are affected by a certain -sound change, some words prove refractory because in their case -the old sound is found to be more expressive than the new one. -When the long E. [i·] was diphthongized into [ai], the words <i>pipe</i> -and <i>whine</i> ceased to be good echoisms, but some dialects have -<i>peep</i> ‘complain,’ which keeps the old sound of the former, and -the Irish say <i>wheen</i> (Joyce, <cite>English as we speak it in Ireland</cite>, 103). -In <i>squeeze</i> the [i·] sound has been retained as more expressive—the -earlier form was <i>squize</i>; and the same is the case with some -words meaning ‘to look narrowly’: <i>peer</i>, <i>peek</i>, <i>keek</i>, earlier <i>pire</i>, -<i>pike</i>, <i>kike</i> (cf. Dan. <i lang="da" xml:lang="da">pippe</i>, <i lang="da" xml:lang="da">kikke</i>, <i lang="da" xml:lang="da">kige</i>, G. <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">kieken</i>).<a name="FNanchor_68_68" id="FNanchor_68_68"></a><a href="#Footnote_68_68" class="fnanchor">[68]</a> In the same -way, when the old [a·] was changed into [ɛ·, ei], the word <i>gape</i> -ceased to be expressive (as it is still in Dan. <i lang="da" xml:lang="da">gabe</i>), but in popular -speech the tendency to raise the vowel was resisted, and the old -sound [ga·p] persisted, spelt <i>garp</i> as a London form in 1817 (Ellis, -EEP v. 228) and still common in many dialects (see <i>gaup</i>, <i>garp</i> -in EDD); Professor Hempl told me that [ga·p] was also a common -pronunciation in America. In the chapter on Sound Symbolism -(<a href="#CHAPTER_XX">XX</a>) we shall see some other instances of exceptional phonetic -treatment of symbolic words (especially <i>tiny</i>, <i>teeny</i>, <i>little</i>, <i>cuckoo</i>).</p> - - -<h4>XV.—§ 9. Divergent Changes and Analogy.</h4> - -<p>Besides equidistant and convergent sound changes we have -divergent changes, through which sounds at one time identical -have separated themselves later. This is a mere consequence of -the fact that it is rare for a sound to be changed equally in all -positions in which it occurs. On the contrary, one must admit -that the vast majority of sound changes are conditioned by some -such circumstance as influence of neighbouring sounds, position -as initial, medial or final (often with subdivisions, as position -between vowels, etc.), place in a strongly or weakly stressed -syllable, and so forth. One may take as examples some familiar -instances from French: Latin <i>c</i> (pronounced [k]), is variously -treated before <i>o</i> (<i lang="la" xml:lang="la">corpus</i> > <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">corps</i>), <i>a</i> (<i lang="la" xml:lang="la">canem</i> > <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">chien</i>), and <i>e</i> (<i lang="la" xml:lang="la">centum</i> -> <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">cent</i>); in <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">amicum</i> > <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">ami</i> it has totally disappeared. Lat. <i>a</i><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_289" id="Page_289">[289]</a></span> -becomes <i>e</i> in a stressed open syllable (<i lang="la" xml:lang="la">natum</i> > <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">né</i>), except before -a nasal (<i lang="la" xml:lang="la">amat</i> > <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">aime</i>); but after <i>c</i> we have a different treatment -(<i lang="la" xml:lang="la">canem</i> > <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">chien</i>), and in a close syllable it is kept (<i lang="la" xml:lang="la">arborem</i> -> <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">arbre</i>); in weak syllables it is kept initially (<i lang="la" xml:lang="la">amorem</i> > <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">amour</i>), -but becomes [ə] (spelt <i>e</i>) finally (<i lang="la" xml:lang="la">bona</i> > <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bonne</i>). This enumeration -of the chief rules will serve to show the far-reaching differentiation -which in this way may take place among words closely -related as parts of the same paradigm or family of words; -thus, for Lat. <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">amo</i>, <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">amas</i>, <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">amat</i>, <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">amamus</i>, <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">amatis</i>, <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">amant</i> we get -OFr. <i lang="fro" xml:lang="fro">aim</i>, <i lang="fro" xml:lang="fro">aimes</i>, <i lang="fro" xml:lang="fro">aime</i>, <i lang="fro" xml:lang="fro">amons</i>, <i lang="fro" xml:lang="fro">amez</i>, <i lang="fro" xml:lang="fro">aiment</i>, until the discrepancy -is removed through analogy, and we get the regular modern -forms <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">aime</i>, <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">aimes</i>, <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">aime</i>, <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">aimons</i>, <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">aimez</i>, <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">aiment</i>. The levelling tendency, -however, is not strong enough to affect the initial <i>a</i> in -<i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">amour</i> and <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">amant</i>, which are felt as less closely connected with -the verbal forms. What were at first only small differences may -in course of time become greater through subsequent changes, as -when the difference between <i>feel</i> and <i>felt</i>, <i>keep</i> and <i>kept</i>, etc., which -was originally one of length only, became one of vowel quality -as well, through the raising of long [e·] to [i·], while short [e] was -not raised. And thus in many other cases. Different nations -differ greatly in the degree in which they permit differentiation of -cognate words; most nations resent any differentiation in initial -sounds, while the Kelts have no objection to ‘the same word’ -having as many as four different beginnings (for instance <i>t-</i>, <i>d-</i>, -<i>n-</i>, <i>nh-</i>) according to circumstances. In Icelandic the word for -‘other, second’ has for centuries in different cases assumed -such different forms as <i lang="is" xml:lang="is">annarr</i>, <i lang="is" xml:lang="is">önnur</i>, <i lang="is" xml:lang="is">öðrum</i>, <i lang="is" xml:lang="is">aðrir</i>, forms which -in the other Scandinavian languages have been levelled down.</p> - -<p>It is a natural consequence of the manner in which phonology -is usually investigated and represented in manuals of historical -grammar—which start with some old stage and follow the various -changes of each sound in later stages—that these divergent changes -have attracted nearly the sole attention of scholars; this has -led to the prevalent idea that sound laws and analogy are the two -opposed principles in the life of languages, the former tending -always to destroy regularity and harmony, and the latter reconstructing -what would without it be chaos and confusion.<a name="FNanchor_69_69" id="FNanchor_69_69"></a><a href="#Footnote_69_69" class="fnanchor">[69]</a></p> -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_290" id="Page_290">[290]</a></span></p> -<p>This view, however, is too rigorous and does not take into -account the manysidedness of linguistic life. It is not every -irregularity that is due to the operation of phonetic laws, as we -have in all languages many survivals of the confused manner in -which ideas were arranged and expressed in the mind of primitive -man. On the other hand, there are many phonetic changes which -do not increase the number of existing irregularities, but make -for regularity and a simpler system through abolishing phonetic -distinctions which had no semantic or functional value; such -are, for instance, those convergent changes of unstressed vowels -which have simplified the English flexional system (Ch. XIV § <a href="#XIV_10">10</a> -above). And if we were in the habit of looking at linguistic change -from the other end, tracing present sounds back to former sounds -instead of beginning with antiquity, we should see that convergent -changes are just as frequent as divergent ones. Indeed, many -changes may be counted under both heads; an <i>a</i>, which is dissociated -from other <i>a</i>’s through becoming <i>e</i>, is identified with -and from henceforth shares the destiny of other <i>e</i>’s, etc.</p> - - -<h4>XV.—§ 10. Extension of Sound Laws.</h4> - -<p>If a phonetic change has given to some words two forms without -any difference in signification, the same alternation may be extended -to other cases in which the sound in question has a different -origin (‘phonetic analogy’). An undoubted instance is the unhistoric -<i>r</i> in recent English. When the consonantal [r] was -dropped finally and before a consonant while it was retained before -a vowel, and words like <i>better</i>, <i>here</i> thus came to have two forms -[betə, hiə] and [betər (ɔf), hiər (ən ðɛ·ə)] <i>better off</i>, <i>here and there</i>, -the same alternation was transferred to words like <i>idea</i>, <i>drama</i> -[ai'diə, dra·mə], so that the sound [r] is now very frequently inserted -before a word beginning with a vowel: <i>I’d no idea</i>-r-<i>of this</i>, <i>a -drama</i>-r-<i>of Ibsen</i> (many references MEG i. 13. 42). In French -final <i>t</i> and <i>s</i> have become mute, but are retained before a vowel: -<i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">il est</i> [ɛ] <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">venu</i>, <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">il est</i> [ɛt] <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">arrivé</i>; <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">les</i> [le] <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">femmes</i>, <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">les</i> [lez] <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">hommes</i>; -and now vulgar speakers will insert [t] or [z] in the wrong -place between vowels: <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">pa-t assez</i>, <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">j’allai-t écrire</i>, <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">avant-z-hier</i>, -<i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">moi-z-aussi</i>; this is called ‘cuir’ or ‘velours.’</p> - -<p>In course of time a ‘phonetic law’ may undergo a kind of -metamorphosis, being extended to a greater and greater number -of combinations. As regards recent times we are sometimes -able to trace such a gradual development. A case in point is -the dropping of [j] in [ju·] after certain consonants in English -(see MEG i. 13, 7). It began with <i>r</i> as in <i>true</i>, <i>rude</i>; next came -<i>l</i> when preceded by a consonant, as in <i>blue</i>, <i>clue</i>; in these cases<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_291" id="Page_291">[291]</a></span> -[j] is never heard. But after <i>l</i> not preceded by another consonant -there is a good deal of vacillation, thus in <i>Lucy</i>, <i>absolute</i>; after -[s, z] as in <i>Susan</i>, <i>resume</i> there is a strong tendency to suppress [j], -though this pronunciation has not yet prevailed,<a name="FNanchor_70_70" id="FNanchor_70_70"></a><a href="#Footnote_70_70" class="fnanchor">[70]</a> and after [t, d, n], -as in <i>tune</i>, <i>due</i>, <i>new</i>, the suppression is in Britain only found in vulgar -speakers, while in some parts of the United States it is heard from -educated speakers as well. In the speech of these the sound law -may be said to attack any [ju·] after any point consonant, while -it will have to be formulated in various less comprehensive terms -for British speakers belonging to older or younger generations. -It is extremely difficult, not to say impossible, to reconcile such -occurrences with the orthodox ‘young grammarian’ theory of -sound changes being due to a shifting of the organic feeling or -motor sensation (<span lang="de" xml:lang="de">verschiebung des bewegungsgefühls</span>) which is -supposed to have necessarily taken place wherever the same sound -was under the same phonetic conditions. For what are here the -same phonetic conditions? The position after <i>r</i>, after <i>l</i> combinations, -after <i>l</i> even when standing alone, after all point consonants? -Each generation of English speakers will give a -different answer to this question. Now, it is highly probable that -many of the comprehensive prehistoric sound changes, of which -we see only the final result, while possible intermediate stages -evade our inquiry, have begun in the same modest way as the -transition from [ju·] to [u·] in English: with regard to them we -are in exactly the same position as a man who had heard only -such speakers as say consistently [tru·, ru·d, blu·, lu·si, su·zn, -ri'zu·m, tu·n, du·, nu·] and who would then naturally suppose -that [j] in the combination [ju·] had been dropped all at once -after any point consonant.</p> - - -<h4><a id="XV_11"></a>XV.—§ 11. Spreading of Sound Change.</h4> - -<p>Sound laws (to retain provisionally that firmly established -term) have by some linguists, who rightly reject the comparison -with natural laws (e.g. Meringer), been compared rather with the -‘laws’ of fashion in dress. But I think it is important to make -a distinction here: the comparison with fashions throws no light -whatever on the question how sound changes <em>originate</em>—it can tell -us nothing about the first impulse to drop [j] in certain positions -before [u·]; but the comparison is valid when we come to consider -the question how such a change when first begun in one individual -<em>spreads to other individuals</em>. While the former question has been<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_292" id="Page_292">[292]</a></span> -dealt with at some length in the preceding investigation, it now -remains for us to say something about the latter. The spreading -of phonetic change, as of any other linguistic change, is due to -imitation, conscious and unconscious, of the speech habits of -other people. We have already met with imitation in the chapters -dealing with the child and with the influence exerted by foreign -languages. But man is apt to imitate throughout the whole of -his life, and this statement applies to his language as much as to -his other habits. What he imitates, in this as in other fields, is -not always the best; a real valuation of what would be linguistically -good or preferable does not of course enter the head of -the ‘man in the street.’ But he may imitate what he thinks -pretty, or funny, and especially what he thinks characteristic of -those people whom for some reason or other he looks up to. -Imitation is essentially a social phenomenon, and if people do not -always imitate the best (the best thing, the best pronunciation), -they will generally imitate ‘their betters,’ i.e. those that are -superior to them—in rank, in social position, in wealth, in everything -that is thought enviable. What constitutes this superiority -cannot be stated once for all; it varies according to surroundings, -age, etc. A schoolboy may feel tempted to imitate a rough, swaggering -boy a year or two older than himself rather than his teachers -or parents, and in later life he may find other people worthy of -imitation, according to his occupation or profession or individual -taste. But when he does imitate he is apt to imitate everything, -even sometimes things that are not worth imitating. In this way -Percy, in <cite>Henry IV, Second Part</cite>, <span class="smcap lowercase">II.</span> <span class="lock">3. 24—</span></p> - -<div class="poetry-container"><div class="poetry"><div class="stanza"> - <div class="verse indent20">was indeed the glasse</div> - <div class="verse">Wherein the noble youth did dresse themselues.</div> - <div class="verse">He had no legges, that practic’d not his gate,</div> - <div class="verse">And <i>speaking thicke<a name="FNanchor_71_71" id="FNanchor_71_71"></a><a href="#Footnote_71_71" class="fnanchor">[71]</a> (which Nature made his blemish)</i></div> - <div class="verse"><i>Became the accents of the valiant.</i></div> - <div class="verse"><i>For those that could speake low and tardily,</i></div> - <div class="verse"><i>Would turne their owne perfection to abusee,</i></div> - <div class="verse"><i>To seeme like him. So that in speech</i>, in gate ...</div> - <div class="verse">He was the marke, and glasse, coppy, and booke,</div> - <div class="verse">That fashion’d others.</div> -</div></div></div> - -<p>The spreading of a new pronunciation through imitation must -necessarily take some time, though the process may in some -instances be fairly rapid. In some historical instances we are -able to see how a new sound, taking its rise in some particular part -of a country, spreads gradually like a wave, until finally it has -pervaded the whole of a linguistic area. It cannot become universal -all at once; but it is evident that the more natural a new<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_293" id="Page_293">[293]</a></span> -mode of pronunciation seems to members of a particular speech -community, the more readily will it be accepted and the more -rapid will be its diffusion. Very often, both when the new pronunciation -is easier and when there are special psychological -inducements operating in one definite direction, the new form -may originate independently in different individuals, and that of -course will facilitate its acceptation by others. But as a rule a -new pronunciation does not become general except after many -attempts: it may have arisen many times and have died out -again, until finally it finds a fertile soil in which to take firm root. -It may not be superfluous to utter a warning against a fallacy which -is found now and then in linguistic works: when some Danish -or English document, say, of the fifteenth century contains a -spelling indicative of a pronunciation which we should call -‘modern,’ it is hastily concluded that people in those days spoke -in that respect exactly as they do now, whatever the usual spelling -and the testimony of much later grammarians may indicate to -the contrary. But this is far from certain. The more isolated -such a spelling is, the greater is the probability that it shows -nothing but an individual or even momentary deviation from -what was then the common pronunciation—the first swallow ‘who -found with horror that he’d not brought spring.’</p> - - -<h4>XV.—§ 12. Reaction.</h4> - -<p>Even those who have no linguistic training will have some -apperception of sounds as such, and will notice regular correspondences, -and even occasionally exaggerate them, thereby producing -those ‘hypercorrect’ forms which are of specially frequent -occurrence when dialect speakers try to use the ‘received standard’ -of their country. The psychology of this process is well -brought out by B. I. Wheeler, who relates (<cite>Transact. Am. Philol. -Ass.</cite> 32. 14, 1901; I change his symbols into my own phonetic -notation): “In my own native dialect I pronounced <i>new</i> as [nu·]. -I have found myself in later years inclined to say [nju·], especially -when speaking carefully and particularly in public; so also -[tju·zdi] <i>Tuesday</i>. There has developed itself in connexion with -these and other words a dual sound-image [u·:ju·] of such validity -that whenever [u·] is to be formed after a dental [alveolar] explosive -or nasal, the alternative [ju·] is likely to present itself and -create the effect of momentary uncertainty. Less frequently than -in <i>new</i>, <i>Tuesday</i>, the [j] intrudes itself in <i>tune</i>, <i>duty</i>, <i>due</i>, <i>dew</i>, <i>tumour</i>, -<i>tube</i>, <i>tutor</i>, etc.; but under special provocation I am liable to use -it in any of these, and have even caught myself, when in a mood -of uttermost precision, passing beyond the bounds of the imitative<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_294" id="Page_294">[294]</a></span> -adoption of the new sound into self-annexed territory, and creating -[dju·] <i>do</i> and [tju·] <i>two</i>.” One more instance from America -may be given: “In the dialect of Missouri and the neighbouring -States, final <i>a</i> in such words as <i>America</i>, <i>Arizona</i>, <i>Nevada</i> becomes -<i>y</i>—<i>Americy</i>, <i>Arizony</i>, <i>Nevady</i>. All educated people in that region -carefully correct this vulgarism out of their speech; and many -of them carry the correction too far and say <i>Missoura</i>, <i>praira</i>, etc.” -(Sturtevant, LCH 79). Similarly, many Irish people, noticing -that refined English has [i·] in many cases where they have [e·] -(<i>tea</i>, <i>sea</i>, <i>please</i>, etc.) adopt [i·] in these words, and transfer it -erroneously to words like <i>great</i>, <i>pear</i>, <i>bear</i>, etc. (MEG i. 11. 73); -they may also, when correcting their own <i>ar</i> into <i>er</i>, in such words -as <i>learn</i>, go too far and speak of <i>derning</i> a stocking (Joyce, <i>English -as we speak it in Ireland</i>, 93). Cf. from England such forms as -<i>ruing</i>, <i>certing</i>, for <i>ruin</i>, <i>certain</i>.</p> - -<p>From Germany I may mention that Low German speakers -desiring to talk High German are apt to say <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">zeller</i> instead of <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">teller</i>, -because High German in many words has <i>z</i> for their <i>t</i> (<i lang="de" xml:lang="de">zahl</i>, <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">zahm</i>, -etc.), and that those who in their native speech have <i>j</i> for <i>g</i> -(Berlin, etc., <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">eine jute jebratene jans ist eine jute jabe jottes</i>) -will sometimes, when trying to talk correctly, say <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">getzt</i>, <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">gahr</i> for -<i lang="de" xml:lang="de">jetzt</i>, <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">jahr</i>.<a name="FNanchor_72_72" id="FNanchor_72_72"></a><a href="#Footnote_72_72" class="fnanchor">[72]</a></p> - -<p>It will be easily seen that such hypercorrect forms are closely -related to those ‘spelling pronunciations’ which become frequent -when there is much reading of a language whose spelling is not -accurately phonetic; the nineteenth century saw a great number -of them, and their number is likely to increase in this century—especially -among social upstarts, who are always fond of showing -off their new-gained superiority in this and similar ways. But -they need not detain us here, as being really foreign to our subject, -the natural development of speech sounds. I only wish to point -out that many forms which are apparently due to influence from -spelling may not have their origin <em>exclusively</em> from that source, -but may be genuine archaic forms that have been preserved -through purely oral tradition by the side of more worn-down -forms of the same word. For it must be admitted that two or -three forms of the same word may coexist and be used according -to the more or less solemn style of utterance employed. Even<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_295" id="Page_295">[295]</a></span> -among savages, who are unacquainted with the art of writing, -we are told that archaic forms of speech are often kept up and -remembered as parts of old songs only, or as belonging to solemn -rites, cults, etc.</p> - - -<h4>XV.—§ 13. Sound Laws and Etymological Science.</h4> - -<p>In this and the preceding chapter I have tried to pass in review -the various circumstances which make for changes in the phonetic -structure of languages. My treatment is far from exhaustive and -may have other defects; but I want to point out the fact that -nowhere have I found any reason to accept the theory that sound -changes always take place according to rigorous or ‘blind’ laws -admitting no exceptions. On the contrary, I have found many -indications that complete consistency is no more to be expected -from human beings in pronunciation than in any other sphere.</p> - -<p>It is very often said that if sound laws admitted of exceptions -there would be no possibility of a science of etymology. Thus -Curtius wrote as early as 1858 (as quoted by Oertel 259): “If -the history of language really showed such sporadic aberrations, -such pathological, wholly irrational phonetic malformations, we -should have to give up all etymologizing. For only that which -is governed by law and reducible to a coherent system can form -the object of scientific investigation; whatever is due to chance -may at best be guessed at, but will never yield to scientific inference.” -In his practice, however, Curtius was not so strict as his -followers. Leskien, one of the recognized leaders of the ‘young -grammarians,’ says (<cite>Deklination</cite>, xxvii): “If exceptions are -admitted at will (<span lang="de" xml:lang="de">abweichungen</span>), it amounts to declaring that -the object of examination, language, is inaccessible to scientific -comprehension.” Since then, it has been repeated over and over -again that without strict adherence to phonetic laws etymological -science is a sheer impossibility, and sometimes those who have -doubted the existence of strict laws in phonology have been looked -upon as obscurantists adverse to a scientific treatment of language -in general, although, of course, they did not believe that -everything is left to chance or that they were free to put forward -purely arbitrary exceptions.</p> - -<p>There are, however, many instances in which it is hardly -possible to deny etymological connexion, though ‘the phonetic -laws are not observed.’ Is not Gothic <i>azgo</i> with its voiced consonants -evidently ‘the same word’ as E. <i>ash</i>, G. <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">asche</i>, Dan. <i lang="da" xml:lang="da">aske</i>, -with their voiceless consonants? G. <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">neffe</i> with short vowel must -nevertheless be identical with MHG. <i lang="gmh" xml:lang="gmh">neve</i>, OHG. <i lang="goh" xml:lang="goh">nevo</i>; E. <i>pebble</i> -with OE. <i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">papol</i>; <i>rescue</i> with ME. <i lang="enm" xml:lang="enm">rescowe</i>; <i>flagon</i> with Fr. <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">flacon</i>,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_296" id="Page_296">[296]</a></span> -though each of these words contains deviations from what we -find in other cases. It is hard to keep apart two similar forms -for ‘heart,’ one with initial <i>gh</i> in Skt. <i>hrd</i> and Av. <i>zered-</i>, and -another with initial <i>k</i> in Gr. <i>kardía</i>, <i>kēr</i>, Lat. <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">cor</i>, Goth. <i>haírto</i>, -etc. The Greek ordinals <i>hébdomos</i>, <i>ógdoos</i> have voiced consonants -over against the voiceless combinations in <i>heptá</i>, <i>oktṓ</i>, and yet -cannot be separated from them. All this goes to show (and many -more cases might be instanced) that there are in every language -words so similar in sound and signification that they cannot be -separated, though they break the ‘sound laws’: in such cases, -where etymologies are too palpable, even the strictest scholars -momentarily forget their strictness, maybe with great reluctance -and in the secret hope that some day the reason for the deviation -may be discovered and the principle thus be maintained.</p> - -<p>Instead of exacting strict adherence to sound laws everywhere -as the basis of any etymologizing, it seems therefore to be in better -agreement with common sense to say: whenever an etymology -is not palpably evident, whenever there is some difficulty because -the compared words are either too remote in sound or in sense or -belong to distant periods of the same language or to remotely -related languages, your etymology cannot be reckoned as <em>proved</em> -unless you have shown by other strictly parallel cases that the -sound in question has been treated in exactly the same way in the -same language. This, of course, applies more to old than to modern -periods, and we thus see that while in living languages accessible -to direct observation we do not find sound laws observed without -exceptions, and though we must suppose that, on account of the -essential similarity of human psychology, conditions have been -the same at all periods, it is not unreasonable, in giving etymologies -for words from old periods, to act as if sound changes followed -strict laws admitting no exceptions; this is simply a matter of -proof, and really amounts to this: where the matter is doubtful, -we must require a great degree of probability in that field -which allows of the simplest and most easily controllable formulas, -namely the phonetic field. For here we have comparatively -definite phenomena and are consequently able with relative ease -to compute the possibilities of change, while this is infinitely more -difficult in the field of significations. The possibilities of semantic -change are so manifold that the only thing generally required -when the change is not obvious is to show some kind of parallel -change, which need not even have taken place in the same language -or group of languages, while with regard to sounds the -corresponding changes must have occurred in the same language -and at the same period in order for the evidence to be sufficient to -establish the etymology in question.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_297" id="Page_297">[297]</a></span></p> - -<p>It would perhaps be best if linguists entirely gave up the habit -of speaking about phonetic ‘laws,’ and instead used some such -expression as phonetic formulas or rules. But if we are to keep -the word ‘law,’ we may with some justice think of the use of -that word in juridical parlance. When we read such phrases as: -this assumption is against phonetic laws, or, phonetic laws do not -allow us this or that etymology, or, the writer of some book under -review is guilty of many transgressions of established phonetic -laws, etc., such expressions cannot help suggesting the idea that -phonetic laws resemble paragraphs of some criminal law. We -may formulate the principle in something like the following way: -If in the etymologies you propose you do not observe these rules, -if, for instance, you venture to make Gr. <i>kaléo</i> = E. <i>call</i> in spite -of the fact that Gr. <i>k</i> in other words corresponds to E. <i>h</i>, then -you incur the severest punishment of science, your etymology is -rejected, and you yourself are put outside the pale of serious -students.</p> - -<p>In another respect phonetic laws may be compared with what -we might call a Darwinian law in zoology, such as this: the fore-limbs -of the common ancestor of mammals have developed into -flippers in whales and into hands in apes and men. The similarity -between both kinds of laws is not inconsiderable. A microscopic -examination of whales, even an exact investigation by -means of the eye alone, will reveal innumerable little deviations: -no two flippers are exactly alike. And in the same way no two -persons speak in exactly the same way. But the fact that we -cannot in detail account for each of these <i>nuances</i> should not -make us doubt that they are developed in a perfectly natural -way, in accordance with the great law of causality, nor should we -despair of the possibility of scientific treatment, even if some -of the flippers and some of the sounds are not exactly what we -should expect. A law of fore-limb development can only be -deduced through such observation of many flippers as will single -out what is typical of whales’ flippers, and then a comparison -with the typical fore-limbs of their ancestors or of their congeners -among existing mammals. And in the same way we do not find -laws of phonetic development until, after leaving what can be -examined as it were microscopically, we go on telescopically to -examine languages which are far removed from each other in -space or time: then small differences disappear, and we discover -nothing but the great lines of a regular evolution which is the -outcome of an infinite number of small movements in many -different directions.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_298" id="Page_298">[298]</a></span></p> - - -<h4>XV.—§ 14. Conclusion.</h4> - -<p>It has been one of the leading thoughts in the two chapters -devoted to the causes of linguistic change that phonetic changes, -to be fully understood, should not be isolated from other changes, -for in actual linguistic life we witness a constant interplay of -sound and sense. Not only should each sound change be always -as far as possible seen in connexion with other sound changes -going on in the same period in the same language (as in the great -vowel-raising in English), but the effects on the speech material -as a whole should in each case be investigated, so as to show what -homophones (if any) were produced, and what danger they -entailed to the understanding of natural sentences. Sounds -should never be isolated from the words in which they occur, nor -words from sentences. No hard-and-fast boundary can be drawn -between phonetic and non-phonetic changes. The psychological -motives for both kinds of changes are the same in many cases, -and the way in which both kinds spread through imitation is -absolutely identical: what was said on this subject above (§ <a href="#XV_11">11</a>) -applies without the least qualification to any linguistic change, -whether in sounds, in grammatical forms, in syntax, in the signification -of words, or in the adoption of new words and dropping -of old ones.</p> - -<p>We shall here finally very briefly consider something which -plays a certain part in the development of language, but which -has not been adequately dealt with in what precedes, namely, -the desire to play with language. We have already met with -the effects of playfulness in one of the chapters devoted to children -(p. <a href="#Page_148">148</a>): here we shall see that the same tendency is also powerful -in the language of grown-up people, though most among young -people. There is a certain exuberance which will not rest contented -with traditional expressions, but finds amusement in the -creation and propagation of new words and in attaching new -meanings to old words: this is the exact opposite of that linguistic -poverty which we found was at the bottom of such minimum -languages as Pidgin-English. We find it in the wealth of pet-names -which lovers have for each other and mothers for their -children, in the nicknames of schoolboys and of ‘pals’ of later -life, as well as in the perversions of ordinary words which at times -become the fashion among small sets of people who are constantly -thrown together and have plenty of spare time; cf. also the ‘little -language’ of Swift and Stella. Most of these forms of speech -have a narrow range and have only an ephemeral existence, but -in the world of <em>slang</em> the same tendencies are constantly at work.</p> - -<p>Slang words are often confused with vulgarisms, though the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_299" id="Page_299">[299]</a></span> -two things are really different. The vulgar tongue is a class -dialect, and a vulgarism is an element of the normal speech of -low-class people, just as ordinary dialect words are elements of -the natural speech of peasants in one particular district; slang -words, on the other hand, are words used in conscious contrast -to the natural or normal speech: they can be found in all classes -of society in certain moods, and on certain occasions when a speaker -wants to avoid the natural or normal word because he thinks it -too flat or uninteresting and wants to achieve a different effect -by breaking loose from the ordinary expression. A vulgarism is -what will present itself at once to the mind of a person belonging -to one particular class; a slang word is something that is wilfully -substituted for the first word that will present itself. The distinction -will perhaps appear most clearly in the case of grammar: -if a man says <i>them boys</i> instead of <i>those boys</i>, or <i>knowed</i> instead of -<i>knew</i>, these are the normal forms of his language, and he knows -no better, but the educated man looks down upon these forms -as vulgar. Inversely, an educated man may amuse himself now -and then by using forms which he perfectly well knows are not -the received forms, thus <i>wunk</i> from <i>wink</i>, <i>collode</i> from <i>collide</i>, -<i>praught</i> from <i>preach</i> (on the analogy of <i>taught</i>); “We handshook -and <i>candlestuck</i>, as somebody said, and went to bed” (H. James). -But, of course, slang is more productive in the lexical than in the -grammatical portion of language. And there is something that -makes it difficult in practice always to keep slang and vulgar speech -apart, namely, that when a person wants to leave the beaten path -of normal language he is not always particular as to the source -whence he takes his unusual words, and he may therefore sometimes -take a vulgar word and raise it to the dignity of a slang word.</p> - -<p>A slang word is at first individual, but may through imitation -become fashionable in certain sets; after some time it may either -be accepted by everybody as part of the normal language, or else, -more frequently, be so hackneyed that no one finds pleasure in -using it any longer.</p> - -<p>Slang words may first be words from the ordinary language -used in a different sense, generally metaphorically. Sometimes -we meet with the same figurative expression in the slang of various -countries, as when the ‘head’ is termed <i>the upper story</i> (<i>upper -loft</i>, <i>upper works</i>) in English, <i lang="da" xml:lang="da">øverste etage</i> in Danish, and <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">oberstübchen</i> -in German; more often different images are chosen in different -languages, as when for the same idea we have <i>nut</i> or <i>chump</i> in -English and <i lang="da" xml:lang="da">pære</i> (‘pear’) in Danish, <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">coco</i> or <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">ciboule</i> (or <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">boule</i>) in -French. Slang words of this character may in some instances give -rise to expressions the origin of which is totally forgotten. In old -slang there is an expression for the tongue, <i>the red rag</i>; this is<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_300" id="Page_300">[300]</a></span> -shortened into <i>the rag</i>, and I suspect that the verb <i>to rag</i>, ‘to scold, -rate, talk severely to’ (“of obscure origin,” NED), is simply from -this substantive (cf. <i>to jaw</i>).</p> - -<p>Secondly, slang words may be words of the normal language -used in their ordinary signification, but more or less modified in -regard to form. Thus we have many shortened forms, <i>exam</i>, <i>quad</i>, -<i>pub</i>, for <i>examination</i>, <i>quadrangle</i>, <i>public-house</i>, etc. Not unfrequently -the shortening process is combined with an extension, -some ending being more or less arbitrarily substituted for the latter -part of the word, as when <i>football</i> becomes <i>footer</i>, and <i>Rugby football</i> -and <i>Association football</i> become <i>Rugger</i> and <i>Socker</i>, or when -at Cambridge a freshman is called a <i>fresher</i> and a bedmaker a -<i>bedder</i>.</p> - -<p>In schoolboys’ slang (Harrow) there is an ending <i>-agger</i> which -may be added instead of the latter part of any word; about 1885 -Prince Albert Victor when at Cambridge was nicknamed <i>the Pragger</i>; -an Agnostic was called a <i>Nogger</i>, etc. I strongly suspect that -the word <i>swagger</i> is formed in the same way from <i>swashbuckler</i>. -Another schoolboys’ ending is <i>-g</i>: <i>fog</i>, <i>seg</i>, <i>lag</i>, for ‘first, second, -last,’ <i>gag</i> at Winchester for ‘gathering’ (a special kind of Latin -exercise). Charles Lamb mentions from Christ’s Hospital <i>crug</i> for -‘a quarter of a loaf,’ evidently from <i>crust</i>; <i>sog</i> = sovereign, <i>snag</i> -= snail (old), <i>swig</i> = swill; words like <i>fag</i>, <i>peg away</i>, and others are -perhaps to be explained from the same tendency. Arnold Bennett -in one of his books says of a schoolboy that his vocabulary comprised -an extraordinary number of words ending in <i>gs</i>: <i>foggs</i>, -<i>seggs</i>, for first, second, etc. It is interesting to note that in French -argot there are similar endings added to more or less mutilated -words: <i>-aque</i>, <i>-èque</i>, <i>-oque</i> (Sainéan, <cite lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">L’Argot ancien</cite>, 1907, 50 and -especially 57).</p> - -<p>There is also a peculiar class of roundabout expressions in -which the speaker avoids the regular word, but hints at it in a -covert way by using some other word, generally a proper name, -which bears a resemblance to it or is derived from it, really or -seemingly. Instead of saying ‘I want to go to bed,’ he will say, -‘I am for Bedfordshire,’ or in German ‘<span lang="de" xml:lang="de">Ich gehe nach Bethlehem</span>’ -or ‘<span lang="de" xml:lang="de">nach Bettingen</span>,’ in Danish ‘<span lang="da" xml:lang="da">gå til Slumstrup, Sovstrup, -Hvilsted</span>.’ Thus also ‘send a person to Birching-lane,’ -i.e. to whip him, ‘he has been at Hammersmith,’ i.e. has been -beaten, thrashed; ‘you are on the highway to Needham,’ i.e. -on the high-road to poverty, etc. (Cf. my paper on “Punning or -Allusive Phrases” in <cite lang="da" xml:lang="da">Nord. Tidsskr. f. Fil.</cite> 3 r. 9. 66.)</p> - -<p>The language of poetry is closely related to slang, in so far as -both strive to avoid commonplace and everyday expressions. -The difference is that where slang looks only for the striking or<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_301" id="Page_301">[301]</a></span> -unexpected expression, and therefore often is merely eccentric -or funny (sometimes only would-be comic), poetry looks higher -and craves abiding beauty—beauty in thought as well as -beauty in form, the latter obtained, among other things, by -rhythm, alliteration, rime, and harmonious variety of vowel -sounds.</p> - -<p>In some countries these forms tend to become stereotyped, -and then may to some extent kill the poetic spirit, poetry becoming -artificiality instead of art; the later Skaldic poetry may serve -as an illustration. Where there is a strong literary tradition—and -that may be found even where there is no written literature—veneration -for the old literature handed down from one’s ancestors -will often lead to a certain fossilization of the literary language, -which becomes a shrine of archaic expressions that no one uses -naturally or can master without great labour. If this state of -things persists for centuries, it results in a cleavage between the -spoken and the written language which cannot but have the most -disastrous effects on all higher education: the conditions prevailing -nowadays in Greece and in Southern India may serve as -a warning. Space forbids me more than a bare mention of this -topic, which would deserve a much fuller treatment; for details -I may refer to K. Krumbacher, <cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Das Problem der neugriechischen -Schriftsprache</cite>, Munich, 1902 (for the other side of the case see -G. N. Hatzidakis, <cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Die Sprachfrage in Griechenland</cite>, Athens, 1905) -and G. V. Ramamurti, <cite>A Memorandum on Modern Telugu</cite>, -Madras, 1913.</p> - - - -<div class="chapter"> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_303" id="Page_303">[303]</a></span></p> - - - - - -<h2 class="nobreak"><a name="BOOK_IV" id="BOOK_IV"><i>BOOK IV</i></a><br /> - -<span class="larger">THE DEVELOPMENT OF LANGUAGE</span></h2> -</div> - - - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_305" id="Page_305">[305]</a></span></p> - - -<h3 class="nobreak"><a name="CHAPTER_XVI" id="CHAPTER_XVI">CHAPTER XVI</a><br /> - -<span class="larger">ETYMOLOGY</span></h3> - -<div class="blockquot chaptersummary"> - -<p>§ 1. Achievements. § 2. Doubtful Cases. § 3. Facts, not Fancies. § 4. Hope. -§ 5. Requirements. § 6. Blendings. § 7. Echo Words. § 8. Some -Conjunctions. § 9. Object of Etymology. § 10. Reconstruction.</p></div> - - -<h4>XVI.—§ 1. Achievements.</h4> - -<p>Few things have been more often quoted in works on linguistics -than Voltaire’s <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">mot</i> that in etymology vowels count for nothing -and consonants for very little. But it is now said just as often -that the satire might be justly levelled at the pseudo-scientific -etymology of the eighteenth century, but has no application to our -own times, in which etymology knows how to deal with both -vowels and consonants, and—it should be added, though it is -often forgotten—with the meanings of words. One often comes -across outbursts of joy and pride in the achievements of modern -etymological science, like the following, which is quoted here <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">instar -omnium</i>: “Nowadays etymology has got past the period of more -or less ‘happy thoughts’ (<span lang="de" xml:lang="de">glücklichen einfälle</span>) and has developed -into a science in which, exactly as in any other science, serious -persevering work must lead to reliable results” (H. Schröder, -<cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Ablautstudien</cite>, 1910, X; cf. above, Max Müller and Whitney, p. 89).</p> - -<p>There is no denying that much has been achieved, but it is -equally true that a skeptical mind cannot fail to be struck with -the uncertainty of many proposed explanations: very often -scholars have not got beyond ‘happy thoughts,’ many of which -have not even been happy enough to have been accepted by -anybody except their first perpetrators. From English alone, -which for twelve hundred years has had an abundant written -literature, and which has been studied by many eminent linguists, -who have had many sister-languages with which to compare -it, it would be an easy matter to compile a long list of -words, well-known words of everyday occurrence, which etymologists -have had to give up as beyond their powers of solution -(<i>fit</i>, <i>put</i>, <i>pull</i>, <i>cut</i>, <i>rouse</i>, <i>pun</i>, <i>fun</i>, <i>job</i>). And equally perplexing -are many words now current all over Europe, some of them -comparatively recent and yet completely enigmatic: <i>race</i>, <i>baron</i>, -<i>baroque</i>, <i>rococo</i>, <i>zinc</i>.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_306" id="Page_306">[306]</a></span></p> - - -<h4>XVI.—§ 2. Doubtful Cases.</h4> - -<p>Or let us take a word of that class which forms the staple -subject of etymological disquisitions, one in which the semantic -side is literally as clear as sunshine, namely the word for ‘sun.’ -Here we have, among others, the following forms: (1) <i>sun</i>, OE. -<i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">sunne</i>, Goth. <i>sunno</i>; (2) Dan., Lat. <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">sol</i>, Goth. <i>sauil</i>, Gr. <i>hḗlios</i>; -(3) OE. <i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">sigel</i>, <i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">sægl</i>, Goth. <i>sugil</i>; (4) OSlav. <i>slǔnǐce</i>, Russ. <i>solnce</i> -(now with mute <i>l</i>). That these forms are related cannot be -doubted, but their mutual relation, and their relation to Gr. <i>selḗnē</i>, -which means ‘moon,’ and to OE. <i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">swegel</i> ‘sky,’ have never been -cleared up. Holthausen derives <i>sunno</i> from the verb <i>sinnan</i> ‘go’ -and OE. <i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">sigel</i> from the verb <i>sigan</i> ‘descend, go down’—but is -it really probable that our ancestors should have thought of the -sun primarily as the one that goes, or that sets? The word <i>south</i> -(orig. *<i>sunþ</i>; the <i>n</i> as in OHG. <i lang="goh" xml:lang="goh">sund</i> is still kept in Dan. <i lang="da" xml:lang="da">sønden</i>) -is generally explained as connected with <i>sun</i>, and the meaning -‘sunny side’ is perfectly natural; but now H. Schröder thinks -that it is derived from a word meaning ‘right’ (OE. <i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">swiðre</i>, orig. -‘stronger,’ a comparative of the adj. found in G. <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">geschwind</i>), -and he says that the south is to the right when you look at the -sun at sunrise—which is perfectly true, but why should people -have thought of the south as being to the right when they wanted -to speak of it in the afternoon or evening?</p> - -<p>Let me take one more example to show that our present methods, -or perhaps our present data, sometimes leave us completely in the -lurch with regard to the most ordinary words. We have a series -of words which may all, without any formal difficulties, be referred -to a root-form <i>seqw-</i>. Their significations are, <span class="lock">respectively—</span></p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>(1) ‘say,’ E. <i>say</i>, OE. <i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">secgan</i>, ON. <i lang="non" xml:lang="non">segja</i>, G. <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">sagen</i>, Lith. <i lang="lt" xml:lang="lt">sakýti</i>. -To this is referred Gr. <i>énnepe</i>, <i>eníspein</i>, Lat. <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">inseque</i> -and possibly <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">inquam</i>.</p> - -<p>(2) ‘show, point out,’ OSlav. <i>sočiti</i>, Lat. <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">signum</i>.</p> - -<p>(3) ‘see,’ E. <i>see</i>, OE. <i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">seon</i>, Goth. <i>saihwan</i>, G. <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">sehen</i>, etc.</p> - -<p>(4) ‘follow,’ Lat. <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">sequor</i>, Gr. <i>hépomai</i>, Skr. <i>sácate</i>. Here -belongs Lat. <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">socius</i>, OE. <i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">secg</i> ‘man,’ orig. ‘follower.’</p></div> - -<p>Now, are these four groups ‘etymologically identical’? -Opinions differ widely, as may be seen from C. D. Buck, “Words -of Speaking and Saying” (<cite>Am. Journ. of Philol.</cite> 36. 128, 1915). -They may be thus tabulated, a comma meaning supposed identity -and a dash the opposite:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> -1, 2-3, 4 Kluge, Falk, Torp.<br /> -1, 2, 3-4 Brugmann.<br /> -1, 2, 3, 4 Wood, Buck.<a name="FNanchor_73_73" id="FNanchor_73_73"></a><a href="#Footnote_73_73" class="fnanchor">[73]</a><br /> -</div> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_307" id="Page_307">[307]</a></span></p> -<p>For the transition in meaning from ‘see’ to ‘say’ we are -referred to such words as <i>observe</i>, <i>notice</i>, G. <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">bemerkung</i>, while in -G. <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">anweisen</i>, and still more in Lat. <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">dico</i>, there is a similar transition -from ‘show’ to ‘say.’ Wood derives the signification ‘follow’ -from ‘point out,’ through ‘show, guide, attend.’ With regard -to the relation between 3 and 4, it has often been said that to see -is to follow with the eyes. In short, it is possible, if you take -some little pains, to discover notional ties between all four groups -which may not be so very much looser than those between other -words which everybody thinks related. And yet? I cannot see -that the knowledge we have at present enables us, or can enable -us, to do more than leave the mutual relation of these groups an -open question. One man’s guess is just as good as another’s, or -one man’s yes as another man’s no—if the connexion of these -words is ‘science,’ it is, if I may borrow an expression from the -old archæologist Samuel Pegge, <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">scientia ad libitum</i>. Personal -predilection and individual taste have not been ousted from -etymological research to the extent many scholars would have -us believe.</p> - -<p>Or we may perhaps say that among the etymologies found in -dictionaries and linguistic journals some are solid and firm as -rocks, but others are liquid and fluctuate like the sea; and finally -not a few are in a gaseous state and blow here and there as the -wind listeth. Some of them are no better than poisonous gases, -from which may Heaven preserve us!<a name="FNanchor_74_74" id="FNanchor_74_74"></a><a href="#Footnote_74_74" class="fnanchor">[74]</a></p> - - -<h4>XVI.—§ 3. Facts, not Fancies.</h4> - -<p>As early as 1867 Michel Bréal, in an excellent article (reprinted -in M 267 ff.), called attention to the dangers resulting from the -general tendency of comparative linguists to “jump intermediate -steps in order at once to mount to the earliest stages of the language,” -but his warning has not taken effect, so that etymologists -in dealing with a word found only in comparatively recent times -will often try to reconstruct what might have been its Proto-Aryan -form and compare that with some word found in some -other language. Thus, Falk and Torp refer G. <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">krieg</i> to an Aryan -primitive form *<i>grêigho-</i>, *<i>grîgho-</i>, which is compared with Irish<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_308" id="Page_308">[308]</a></span> -<i lang="ga" xml:lang="ga">bríg</i> ‘force.’ But the German word is not found in use till the -middle period; it is peculiar to German and unknown in related -languages (for the Scandinavian and probably also the Dutch -words are later loans from Germany). These writers do not take -into account how improbable it is that such a word, if it were -really an old traditional word for this fundamental idea, should -never once have been recorded in any of the old documents of the -whole of our family of languages. What should we think of the -man who would refer <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">boche</i>, the French nickname for ‘German’ -which became current in 1914, and before that time had only been -used for a few years and known to a few people only, to a Proto-Aryan -root-form? Yet the method in both cases is identical; -it presupposes what no one can guarantee, that the words in -question are of those which trot along the royal road of language -for century after century without a single side-jump, semantic -or phonetic. Such words are the favourites of linguists because -they have always behaved themselves since the days of Noah; -but others are full of the most unexpected pranks, which no -scientific ingenuity can discover if we do not happen to know the -historical facts. Think of <i>grog</i>, for example. Admiral Vernon, -known to sailors by the nickname of “Old Grog” because he wore -a cloak of grogram (this, by the way, from Fr. <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">gros grain</i>), in 1740 -ordered a mixture of rum and water to be served out instead -of pure rum, and the name was transferred from the person -to the drink. If it be objected that such leaps are found -only in slang, the answer is that slang words very often become -recognized after some time, and who knows but that may -have been the case with <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">krieg</i> just as well as with many a -recent word?</p> - -<p>At any rate, facts weigh more than fancies, and whoever wants -to establish the etymology of a word must first ascertain all the -historical facts available with regard to the place and time of -its rise, its earliest signification and syntactic construction, its -diffusion, the synonyms it has ousted, etc. Thus, and thus only, -can he hope to rise above loose conjectures. Here the great -historical dictionaries, above all the Oxford <i>New English Dictionary</i>, -render invaluable service. And let me mention one model article -outside these dictionaries, in which Hermann Möller has in my -opinion given a satisfactory solution of the riddle of G. <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">ganz</i>: -he explains it as a loan from Slav <i>konǐcǐ</i> ‘end,’ used especially -adverbially (perhaps with a preposition in the form <i>v-konec</i> or -<i>v-konc</i>) ‘to the end, completely’; Slav <i>c</i> = G. <i>z</i>, Slav <i>k</i> pronounced -essentially as South G. <i>g</i>; the gradual spreading and various -significations and derived forms are accounted for with very great -learning (<cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Zs. f. D. Alt.</cite> 36. 326 ff.). It is curious that this article<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_309" id="Page_309">[309]</a></span> -should have been generally overlooked or neglected, though the -writer seems to have met all the legitimate requirements of a -scientific etymology.</p> - - -<h4>XVI.—§ 4. Hope.</h4> - -<p>I have endeavoured to fulfil these requirements in the new -explanation I have given of the word <i>hope</i> (Dan. <i lang="da" xml:lang="da">håbe</i>, Swed. -<i lang="sv" xml:lang="sv">hoppas</i>, G. <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">hoffen</i>), now used in all Gothonic tongues in exactly -the same signification. Etymologists are at variance about this -word. Kluge connects it with the OE. noun <i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">hyht</i>, and from that -form infers that Gothonic *<i>hopôn</i> stands for *<i>huqôn</i>, from an Aryan -root <i>kug</i>; he says that a connexion with Lat. <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">cupio</i> is scarcely -possible. Walde likewise rejects connexion between <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">cupio</i> and -either <i>hope</i> or Goth. <i>hugjan</i>. To Falk and Torp <i>hope</i> has probably -nothing to do with <i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">hyht</i>, but probably with <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">cupio</i>, which is derived -from a root *<i>kup</i> = <i>kvap</i>, found in Lat. <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">vapor</i> ‘steam,’ and with -a secondary form *<i>kub</i>, in <i>hope</i>, and *<i>kvab</i> in Goth. <i>af-hwapjan</i> -‘choke’—a wonderful medley of significations. H. Möller -(<cite lang="da" xml:lang="da">Indoeur.-Semit. sammenlignende Glossar.</cite> 63), in accordance with -his usual method, establishes an Aryo-Semitic root *<i>k̑-u̯-</i>, meaning -‘<span lang="la" xml:lang="la">ardere</span>’ and transferred to ‘<span lang="la" xml:lang="la">ardere amore, cupiditate, desiderio</span>,’ -the root being extended with <i>b-</i>: <i>p-</i> in <i>hope</i> and <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">cupio</i>, with <i>gh-</i> -in Goth. <i>hugs</i>, and with <i>g̑-</i> in OE. <i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">hyht</i>. Surely a typical example -of the perplexity of our etymologists, who disagree in everything -except just in the one thing which seems to me extremely doubtful, -that <i>hope</i> with the present spiritual signification goes back to -common Aryan. Now, what are the real facts of the matter? -Simply these, that the word <i>hope</i> turns up at a comparatively -late date in historical times at one particular spot, and from there -it gradually spreads to the neighbouring countries. In Denmark -(<i lang="da" xml:lang="da">håb</i>, <i lang="da" xml:lang="da">håbe</i>) and in Sweden (<i lang="sv" xml:lang="sv">hopp</i>, <i lang="sv" xml:lang="sv">hoppas</i>) it is first found late in the -Middle Ages as a religious loan from Low German <i lang="nds" xml:lang="nds">hope</i>, <i lang="nds" xml:lang="nds">hopen</i>. -High German <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">hoffen</i> is found very rarely about 1150, but does -not become common till a hundred years later; it is undoubtedly -taken (with sound substitution) from Low German and moves -in Germany from north to south. Old Saxon has the subst. <i lang="osx" xml:lang="osx">tō-hopa</i>, -which has probably come from OE., where we have the same -form for the subst., <i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">tō-hopa</i>. This is pretty common in religious -prose, but in poetry it is found only once (Boet.)—a certain indication -that the word is recent. The subst. without <i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">tō</i> is comparatively -late (Ælfric, ab. 1000). The verb is found in rare -instances about a hundred years earlier, but does not become -common till later. Now, it is important to notice that the verb in -the old period never takes a direct object, but is always connected<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_310" id="Page_310">[310]</a></span> -with the preposition <i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">tō</i> (compare the subst.), even in modern -usage we have <i>to hope to</i>, <i>for</i>, <i>in</i>. Similarly in G., where the phrase -was <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">auf etwas hoffen</i>; later the verb took a genitive, then a pronoun -in the accusative, and finally an ordinary object; in biblical -language we find also <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">zu gott hoffen</i>. Now, I would connect our -word with the form <i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">hopu</i>, found twice as part of a compound in -<cite>Beowulf</cite> (450 and 764), where ‘refuge’ gives good sense: <i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">hopan to</i>, -then, is to ‘take one’s refuge to,’ and <i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">to-hopa</i> ‘refuge.’ This verb -I take to be at first identical with <i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">hop</i> (the only OE. instance I -know of this is Ælfric, <i>Hom.</i> 1. 202: <i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">hoppode ongean his drihten</i>). -We have also one instance of a verb <i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">onhupian</i> (<cite>Cura Past.</cite> 441) -‘draw back, recoil,’ which agrees with ON. <i lang="non" xml:lang="non">hopa</i> ‘move backwards’ -(to the quotations in Fritzner may be added Laxd. 49, 15, -<span lang="non" xml:lang="non">þeir Osvígssynir hopudu undan</span>).<a name="FNanchor_75_75" id="FNanchor_75_75"></a><a href="#Footnote_75_75" class="fnanchor">[75]</a> The original meaning seems -to have been ‘bend, curb, bow, stoop,’ either in order to leap, -or to flee, from something bad, or towards something good; -cf. the subst. <i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">hip</i>, OE. <i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">hype</i>, Goth. <i>hups</i>, Dan. <i lang="da" xml:lang="da">hofte</i>, G. <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">hüfte</i>, Lat. -<i lang="la" xml:lang="la">cubitus</i>, etc. (Holthausen, <cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Anglia Beibl.</cite>, 1904, 350, deals with -these words, but does not connect them with <i>hop</i>, <i>-hopu</i>, or <i>hope</i>.) -The transition from bodily movement to the spiritual ‘hope’ may -have been favoured by the existence of the verb OE. <i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">hogian</i> -‘think,’ but is not in itself more difficult than with, e.g., Lat. -<i lang="la" xml:lang="la">ex(s)ultare</i> ‘leap up, rejoice,’ or Dan. <i lang="da" xml:lang="da">lide på</i> ‘lean to, confide in, -trust,’ <i lang="da" xml:lang="da">tillid</i> ‘confidence, reliance’; and a new word for ‘hope’ -was required because the old <i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">wen</i> (Goth. <i>wens</i>), vb. <i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">wenan</i>, had -at an early age acquired a more general meaning ‘opinion, -probability,’ vb. ‘suppose, imagine.’ The difficulty that the -word for ‘hope’ has single or short <i>p</i> (in Swed., however, <i>pp</i>), -while <i>hop</i>, OE. <i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">hoppian</i>, has double or long <i>p</i>, is no serious -hindrance to our etymology, because the gemination may easily -be accounted for on the principle mentioned below (Ch. XX -§ <a href="#XX_9">9</a>), that is, as giving a more vivid expression of the rapid -action.</p> - - -<h4>XVI.—§ 5. Requirements.</h4> - -<p>It is, of course, impossible to determine once for all by hard-and-fast -rules how great the correspondence must be for us to -recognize two words as ‘etymologically identical,’ nor to say -to which of the two sides, the phonetic and the semantic, we -should attach the greater importance. With the rise of historical -phonology the tendency has been to require exact correspondence -in the former respect, and in semantics to be content with -more or less easily found parallels. One example will show how<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_311" id="Page_311">[311]</a></span> -particular many scholars are in matters of sound. The word <i>nut</i> -(OE. <i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">hnutu</i>, G. <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">nuss</i>, ON. <i lang="non" xml:lang="non">hnot</i>, Dan. <i lang="da" xml:lang="da">nød</i>) is by Paul declared “not -related to Lat. <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">nux</i>” and by Kluge “neither originally akin with -nor borrowed from Lat. <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">nux</i>,” while the NED does not even mention -<i lang="la" xml:lang="la">nux</i> and thus must think it quite impossible to connect it with -the English word. We have here in two related languages two -words resembling each other not only in sound, but in stem-formation -and gender, and possessing exactly the same signification, -which is as concrete and definite as possible. And yet we are -bidden to keep them asunder! Fortunately I am not the first -to protest against such barbarity: H. Pedersen (KZ n.f. 12. 251) -explains both words from *<i>dnuk-</i>, which by metathesis has -become *<i>knud-</i>, while Falk and Torp as well as Walde think -the latter form the original one, which in Latin has been -shifted into *<i>dnuk-</i>. Which of these views is correct (both may -be wrong) is of less importance than the victory of common -sense over phonological pedantry.</p> - -<p>There are two explanations which have had very often to do -duty where the phonological correspondence is not exact, namely -root-variation (root-expansion with determinatives) and apophony -(ablaut). Of the former Uhlenbeck (PBB 30. 252) says: “The -theory of root determinatives no doubt contains a kernel of truth, -but it has only been fatal to etymological science, as it has drawn -the attention from real correspondences between well-substantiated -words to delusive similarities between hypothetical abstractions.” -Apophony inspires more confidence, and in many cases offers fully -reliable explanations; but this principle, too, has been often -abused, and it is difficult to find its true limitations. Many special -applications of it appear questionable; thus, when G. <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">stumm</i>, Dan. -<i lang="da" xml:lang="da">stum</i>, is explained as an apophonic form of the adj. <i>stam</i>, Goth. -<i>stamms</i>, from which we have the verb <i>stammer</i>, G. <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">stammeln</i>, Dan. -<i lang="da" xml:lang="da">stamme</i>: is it really probable that the designation of muteness -should be taken from the word for stammering? This appears -especially improbable when we consider that at the time when -the new word <i>stumm</i> made its appearance there was already another -word for ‘mute,’ namely <i>dumm</i>, <i>dumb</i>, the word which has been -preserved in English. I therefore propose a new etymology: -<i>stumm</i> is a blending of the two synonyms <i>still(e)</i> and <i>dum(b)</i>, made -up of the beginning of the one and the ending of the other word; -through adopting the initial <i>st-</i> the word was also associated with -<i>stump</i>, and we get an exact correspondence between <i>dumm</i>, <i>dum</i>, -<i>stumm</i>, <i>stum</i>, applied to persons, and <i>dumpf</i>, <i>stumpf</i>, Dan. <i lang="da" xml:lang="da">dump</i>, -<i>stump</i>, applied to things. Note that in those languages (G., Dan.) -in which the new word <i>stum(m)</i> was used, the unchanged <i>dum(m)</i> -was free to develop the new sense ‘stupid’ (or was the creation<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_312" id="Page_312">[312]</a></span> -of <i>stum</i> occasioned by the old word tending already to acquire -this secondary meaning?), while <i>dumb</i> in English stuck to the -old signification.</p> - - -<h4><a id="XVI_6"></a>XVI.—§ 6. Blendings.</h4> - -<p>Blendings of synonyms play a much greater rôle in the development -of language than is generally recognized. Many instances -may be heard in everyday life, most of them being immediately -corrected by the speaker (see above, XV § <a href="#XV_4">4</a>), but these momentary -lapses cannot be separated from other instances which are of -more permanent value because they are so natural that they will -occur over and over again until speakers will hardly feel the blend -as anything else than an ordinary word. M. Bloomfield (IF 4. 71) -says that he has been many years conscious of an irrepressible -desire to assimilate the two verbs <i>quench</i> and <i>squelch</i> in both -directions by forming <i>squench</i> and <i>quelch</i>, and he has found the -former word in a negro story by Page. The expression ‘irrepressible -desire’ struck me on reading this, for I have myself in -my Danish speech the same feeling whenever I am to speak of -tending a patient, for I nearly always say <i lang="da" xml:lang="da">plasse</i> as a result of -wavering between <i lang="da" xml:lang="da">pleje</i> [<i>plaiə</i>] and <i lang="da" xml:lang="da">passe</i>. Many examples may be -found in G. A. Bergström, <cite>On Blendings of Synonymous or Cognate -Expressions in English</cite>, Lund, 1906, and Louise Pound, <cite>Blends, -Their Relation to English Word Formation</cite>, Heidelberg, 1914. But -neither of these two writers has seen the full extent of this principle -of formation, which explains many words of greater importance -than those nonce words which are found so plentifully in Miss -Pound’s paper. Let me give some examples, some of them new, -some already found by others:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p><i>blot</i> = <i>bl</i>emish, <i>bl</i>ack + sp<i>ot</i>, p<i>lot</i>, d<i>ot</i>; there is also an -obsolete sp<i>lot</i>.</p> - -<p><i>blunt</i> = <i>bl</i>ind + st<i>unt</i>.</p> - -<p><i>crouch</i> = <i>cr</i>inge, <i>cr</i>ook, <i>cr</i>awl, †<i>crou</i>k + <i>couch</i>.</p> - -<p><i>flush</i> = <i>fl</i>a<i>sh</i> + b<i>lush</i>.</p> - -<p><i>frush</i> = <i>fr</i>og + th<i>rush</i> (all three names of the same disease -in a horse’s foot).</p> - -<p><i>glaze</i> (Shakespeare) = <i>gla</i>re + <i>gaze</i>.</p> - -<p><i>good-bye</i> = <i>good</i>-night, <i>good</i>-morning + <i>godbye</i> (God be with -ye).</p> - -<p><i>knoll</i> = <i>kn</i>e<i>ll</i> + t<i>oll</i>.</p> - -<p><i>scroll</i> = <i>scrow</i> + <i>roll</i>.</p> - -<p><i>slash</i> = <i>sl</i>ay, <i>sl</i>ing, <i>sl</i>at + g<i>ash</i>, d<i>ash</i>.</p> - -<p><i>slender</i> = <i>sl</i>ight (<i>sl</i>im) + t<i>ender</i>.</p></div> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_313" id="Page_313">[313]</a></span></p> - -<p>Such blends are especially frequent in words expressive of -sounds or in some other way symbolical, as, for instance:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p><i>flurry</i> = <i>fl</i>ing, <i>fl</i>ow and many other <i>fl</i>-words + h<i>urry</i> (note -also sc<i>urry</i>).</p> - -<p><i>gruff</i> = <i>gru</i>m, <i>gr</i>im + <i>rough</i>.</p> - -<p><i>slide</i> = <i>sl</i>ip + g<i>lide</i>.</p> - -<p><i>troll</i> = <i>tr</i>i<i>ll</i> + <i>roll</i> (in some senses perhaps rather from -<i>tr</i>ead, <i>tr</i>undle + <i>roll</i>).</p> - -<p><i>twirl</i> = <i>tw</i>ist + <i>whirl</i>.</p></div> - -<p>In slang blends abound, e.g.:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p><i>tosh</i> (Harrow) = <i>t</i>ub + w<i>ash</i>. (Sometimes explained as -<i>toe-wash</i>.)</p> - -<p><i>blarmed</i> = <i>bl</i>a<i>med</i>, <i>bl</i>essed and other <i>bl</i>-words + d<i>arned</i> -(damned).</p> - -<p><i>be danged</i> = <i>da</i>mned + h<i>anged</i>.</p> - -<p><i>I swow</i> = <i>swe</i>ar + v<i>ow</i>.</p> - -<p><i>brunch</i> = <i>br</i>eakfast + l<i>unch</i> (so also, though more rarely -<i>brupper</i> (... + s<i>upper</i>), <i>tunch</i> (<i>t</i>ea + l<i>unch</i>), <i>tupper</i> -= <i>t</i>ea + s<i>upper</i>).<a name="FNanchor_76_76" id="FNanchor_76_76"></a><a href="#Footnote_76_76" class="fnanchor">[76]</a></p></div> - - -<h4>XVI.—§ 7. Echo-words.</h4> - -<p>Most etymologists are very reluctant to admit echoism; thus -Diez rejects onomatopœic origin of It. <i lang="it" xml:lang="it">pisciare</i>, Fr. <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">pisser</i>—an -echo-word if ever there was one—and says, “One can easily go too -far in supposing onomatopœia: as a rule it is more advisable to -build on existing words”; this he does by deriving this verb from -a non-existing *<i>pipisare</i>, <i>pipsare</i>, from <i>pipa</i> ‘pipe, tube.’ Falk -and Torp refer <i>dump</i> (Dan. <i lang="da" xml:lang="da">dumpe</i>) to Swed. <i lang="sv" xml:lang="sv">dimpa</i>, a Gothonic -root <i>demp</i>, supposed to be an extension of an Aryan root <i>dhen</i>: -thus they are too deaf to hear the sound of the heavy fall expressed -by <i>um(p)</i>, cf. Dan. <i lang="da" xml:lang="da">bumpe</i>, <i lang="da" xml:lang="da">bums</i>, <i lang="da" xml:lang="da">plumpe</i>, <i lang="da" xml:lang="da">skumpe</i>, <i lang="da" xml:lang="da">jumpe</i>, and -similar words in other languages.</p> - -<p>It may be fancy, but I think I hear the same sound in Lat. -<i lang="la" xml:lang="la">plumbum</i>, which I take to mean at first not the metal, but the -plummet that was dumped or plumped into the water and was -denominated from the sound; as this was generally made of lead, -the word came to be used for the metal. Most etymologists take -it for granted that <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">plumbum</i> is a loan-word, some being honest -enough to confess that they do not know from what language, -while others without the least scruple or hesitation say that it -was taken from Iberian: our ignorance of that language is so<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_314" id="Page_314">[314]</a></span> -deep that no one can enter an expert’s protest against such a -supposition.<a name="FNanchor_77_77" id="FNanchor_77_77"></a><a href="#Footnote_77_77" class="fnanchor">[77]</a> But if my hypothesis is right, the words <i>plummet</i> -(from OFr. <i lang="fro" xml:lang="fro">plommet</i>, a diminutive of <i lang="fro" xml:lang="fro">plomb</i>) as well as the verb -Fr. <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">plonger</i>, whence E. <i>plunge</i>, from Lat. *<i lang="la" xml:lang="la">plumbicare</i>, are not -only derivatives from <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">plumbum</i> (the only thing mentioned by other -scholars), but also echo-words, and they, or at any rate the verb, -must to a great extent owe their diffusion to their felicitously -symbolic sound. In a novel I find: “Plump went the lead”—showing -how this sound is still found adequate to express the -falling of the lead in sounding. The NED says under the verb -<i>plump</i>: “Some have compared L. <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">plumbare</i> ... to throw the -lead-line ... but the approach of form between <i>plombar</i> and the -LG. <i>plump-plomp</i> group seems merely fortuitous” (!). I see -sound symbolism in <em>all</em> the words <i>plump</i>, while the NED will only -allow it in the most obvious cases. From the sound of a body -plumping into the water we have interesting developments in the -adverb, as in the following quotations: I said, <i>plump</i> out, that -I couldn’t stand any more of it (Bernard Shaw) | The famous -diatribe against Jesuitism points <i>plumb</i> in the same direction -(Morley) | fall <i>plum</i> into the jaws of certain critics (Swift) | Nollie -was a <i>plumb</i> little idiot (Galsworthy). In the last sense ‘entirely’ -it is especially frequent in America, e.g. They lost their senses, -<i>plumb</i> lost their senses (Churchill) | she’s <i>plum</i> crazy, it’s <i>plum</i> -bad, etc. Related words for fall, etc., are <i>plop</i>, <i>plout</i>, <i>plunk</i>, -<i>plounce</i>. Much might also be said in this connexion of various -<i>pop</i> and <i>bob</i> words, but I shall refrain.</p> - - -<h4>XVI.—§ 8. Some Conjunctions.</h4> - -<p>Sometimes obviously correct etymologies yet leave some psychological -points unexplained. One of my pet theories concerns some -adversative conjunctions. Lat. <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">sed</i> has been supplanted by -<i>magis</i>: It. <i lang="it" xml:lang="it">ma</i>, Sp. <i lang="es" xml:lang="es">mas</i>, Fr. <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">mais</i>. The transition is easily accounted -for; from ‘more’ it is no far cry to ‘rather’ (cf. G. <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">vielmehr</i>), -which can readily be employed to correct or gainsay what has -just been said. The Scandinavian word for ‘but’ is <i>men</i>, which -came into use in the fifteenth century and is explained as a blending<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_315" id="Page_315">[315]</a></span> -of <i>meden</i> in its shortened form <i>men</i> (now <i>mens</i>) ‘while’ and Low -German <i lang="nds" xml:lang="nds">men</i> ‘but,’ which stands for older <i>niwan</i>, from the negative -<i>ni</i> and <i>wan</i> ‘wanting’; the meaning has developed through that -of ‘except’ and the sound is easily understood as an instance of -assimilation. The same phonetic development is found in Dutch -<i lang="nl" xml:lang="nl">maar</i>, OFris. <i lang="ofs" xml:lang="ofs">mar</i>, from <i>en ware</i> ‘were not,’ the same combination -which has yielded G. <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">nur</i>. Thus we have four different ways of -getting to expressions for ‘but,’ none of which presents the least -difficulty to those familiar with the semantic ways of words. But -why did these various nations seize on new words? Weren’t the -old ones good enough?</p> - -<p>Here I must call attention to two features that are common -to these new conjunctions, first their syntactic position, which -is invariably in the beginning of the sentence, while such synonymous -words as Lat. <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">autem</i> and G. <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">aber</i> may be placed after one -or more words; then their phonetic agreement in one point: <i>magis</i>, -<i>men</i>, <i>maar</i> all begin with <i>m</i>. Now, both these features are found -in two words for ‘but,’ about whose etymological origin I can -find no information, Finnic <i>mutta</i> and Santal <i>menkhan</i>, as well as -in <i>me</i>, which is used in the <cite>Ancrene Riwle</cite> and a few other early -Middle English texts and has been dubiously connected with the -Scandinavian (and French?) word. How are we to explain these -curious coincidences? I think by the nature of the sound [m], -which is produced when the lips are closed while the tongue rests -passively and the soft palate is lowered so as to allow air to escape -through the nostrils—in short, the position which is typical of -anybody who is quietly thinking over matters without as yet -saying anything, with the sole difference that in his case the vocal -chords are passive, while they are made to vibrate to bring forth -an <i>m</i>.</p> - -<p>Now, it very often happens that a man wants to say something, -but has not yet made up his mind as to <em>what</em> to say; and in this -moment of hesitation, while thoughts are in the process of conception, -the lungs and vocal chords will often be prematurely -set going, and the result is [m] (sometimes preceded by the corresponding -voiceless sound), often written <i>hm</i> or <i>h’m</i>, which thus -becomes the interjection of an unshaped contradiction. Not -infrequently this [m] precedes a real word; thus <i>M’yes</i> (written -in this way by Shaw, <cite>Misalliance</cite> 154, and Merrick, <cite>Conrad</cite> 179) -and Dan. <i lang="da" xml:lang="da">mja</i>, to mark a hesitating consent.</p> - -<p>This will make it clear why words beginning with <i>m</i> are so -often chosen as adversative conjunctions: people begin with this -sound and go on with some word that gives good sense and which -happens to begin with <i>m</i>: <i>mais</i>, <i>maar</i>. The Dan. <i lang="da" xml:lang="da">men</i> in the -mouth of some early speakers is probably this [m], sliding into<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_316" id="Page_316">[316]</a></span> -the old conjunction <i>en</i>, just as <i>myes</i> is <i>m</i> + <i>yes</i>; while other original -users of <i>men</i> may have been thinking of <i>men</i> = <i>meden</i>, and others -again of Low German <i lang="nds" xml:lang="nds">men</i>: these three etymologies are not -mutually destructive, for all three origins may have concurrently -contributed to the popularity of <i>men</i>. Modern Greek and Serbian -<i>ma</i> are generally explained as direct loans from Italian, but may -be indigenous, as may also dialectal Rumanian <i lang="ro" xml:lang="ro">ma</i> in the same -sense, for in the hesitating [m] as the initial sound of objections -we have one of those touches of nature which make the whole -world kin.<a name="FNanchor_78_78" id="FNanchor_78_78"></a><a href="#Footnote_78_78" class="fnanchor">[78]</a></p> - - -<h4>XVI.—§ 9. Object of Etymology.</h4> - -<p>What is the object of etymological science? “To determine -the true signification of a word,” answers one of the masters of -etymological research (Walde, <cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Lat. et. Wörterb.</cite> xi). But surely -in most cases that can be achieved without the help of etymology. -We know the true sense of hundreds of words about the etymology -of which we are in complete ignorance, and we should know exactly -what the word <i>grog</i> means, even if the tradition of its origin had -been accidentally lost. Many people still believe that an account -of the origin of a name throws some light on the essence of the -thing it stands for; when they want to define say ‘religion’ or -‘civilization,’ they start by stating the (real or supposed) origin -of the name—but surely that is superstition, though the first framers -of the name ‘etymology’ (from Gr. <i>etumon</i> ‘true’) must have had -the same idea in their heads. Etymology tells us nothing about -the things, nor even about the present meaning of a word, but -only about the way in which a word has come into existence. -At best, it tells us not what <em>is</em> true, but what <em>has been</em> true.</p> - -<p>The overestimation of etymology is largely attributable to -the “conviction that there can be nothing in language that had -not an intelligible purpose, that there is nothing that is now -irregular that was not at first regular, nothing irrational that was -not originally rational” (Max Müller)—a conviction which is still -found to underlie many utterances about linguistic matters, but -which readers of the present volume will have seen is erroneous -in many ways. On the whole, Max Müller naïvely gives expression -to what is unconsciously at the back of much that is said and -believed about language; thus, when he says (L 1. 44): “I must -ask you at present to take it for granted that everything in language -had originally a meaning. As language can have no other object -but to express our meaning, it might seem to follow almost by<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_317" id="Page_317">[317]</a></span> -necessity that language should contain neither more nor less than -what is required for that purpose.” Yes, so it would if language -had been constructed by an omniscient and omnipotent being, -but as it was developed by imperfect human beings, there is every -possibility of their having failed to achieve their purpose and -having done either more or less than was required to express -their meaning. It would be wrong to say that language (i.e. -speaking man) created first what was strictly necessary, and afterwards -what might be considered superfluous; but it would be -equally wrong to say that linguistic luxuries were always created -before necessaries; yet that view would probably be nearer the -truth than the former. Much of what in former ages was felt -to be necessary to express thoughts was afterwards felt as pedantic -crisscross and gradually eliminated; but at all times many things -have been found in language that can never have been anything -else but superfluous, exactly as many people use a great many -superfluous gestures which are not in the least significant and in -no way assist the comprehension of their intentions, but which -they somehow feel an impulse to perform. In language, as in -life generally, we have too little in some respects, and too much -in others.</p> - - -<h4>XVI.—§ 10. Reconstruction.</h4> - -<p>Kluge somewhere (PBB 37. 479, 1911) says that the establishment -of the common Aryan language is the chief task of our -modern science of linguistics (to my mind it can never be more -than a fragment of that task, which must be to understand the -nature of language), and he thinks optimistically that “reconstructions -with their reliable methods have taken so firm root -that we are convinced that we know the common Aryan <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">grundsprache</i> -just as thoroughly as any language that is more or less -authenticated through literature.” This is a palpable exaggeration, -for no one nowadays has the courage of Schleicher to print -even the smallest fable in Proto-Aryan, and if by some miraculous -accident we were to find a text written in that language we may -be sure it would puzzle us just as much as Tokharian does.</p> - -<p>Reconstruction has two sides, an outer and an inner. With -regard to sounds, it seems to me that very often the masters of -linguistics treat us to reconstructed forms that are little short -of impossible. This is not the place to give a detailed criticism -of the famous theory of ‘nasalis sonans,’ but I hope elsewhere -to be able to state why I think this theory a disfiguring excrescence -on linguistic science: no one has ever been able to find -in any existing language such forms as <i>mnto</i> with stressed syllabic<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_318" id="Page_318">[318]</a></span> -[n], given as the old form of our word <i>mouth</i> (Falk and Torp even -give <i>stmnto</i> in order to connect the word with Gr. <i>stóma</i>), or as -<i>dkmtóm</i> (whence Lat. <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">centum</i>, etc.) or <i>bhrghnti̯es</i> or <i>gu̯mskete</i> -(Brugmann). Not only are these forms phonetically impossible, -but the theory fails to explain the transitions to the forms actually -existing in real languages, and everything is much easier if we -assume forms like [ʌm, ʌn] with some vowel like that of E. <i>un-</i>. -The use in Proto-Aryan reconstructions of non-syllabic <i>i</i> and <i>u</i> also -in some respects invites criticism, but it will be better to treat -these questions in a special paper.</p> - -<p>Semantic reconstruction calls for little comment here. It is -evident from the nature of the subject that no such strict rules -can be given in this domain as in the domain of sound; but nowadays -scholars are more realistic than formerly. Most of them -will feel satisfied when <i>moon</i> and <i>month</i> are associated with words -having the same two significations in related languages, without -indulging in explanations of both from a root <i>me</i> ‘to measure’; -and when our <i>daughter</i> has been connected with Gr. <i>thugáter</i>, -Skt. <i>duhitár</i> and corresponding words in other languages, no attempt -is made to go beyond the meaning common to these words -‘daughter’ and to speculate what had induced our ancestors to -bestow that word on that particular relation, as when Lassen -derived it from the root <i>duh</i> ‘to milk’ and pictured an idyllic -family life, in which it was the business of the young girls to milk -the cows, or when Fick derived the same word from the root <i>dheugh</i> -‘to be useful’ (G. <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">taugen</i>: ‘<span lang="de" xml:lang="de">wie die <i>magd</i>, <i>maid</i> von <i>mögen</i></span>’), as -if the daughters were the only, or the most, efficient members -of the family. Unfortunately, such speculations are still found -lingering in many recent handbooks of high standing: Kluge -hesitates whether to assign the word <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">mutter</i>, <i>mother</i>, to the root -<i>ma</i> in the sense ‘mete out’ or in the sense found in Sanskrit ‘to -form,’ used of the fœtus in the womb. A resigned acquiescence -in inevitable ignorance and a sense of reality should certainly be -characteristics of future etymologists.</p> - - -<div class="chapter"> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_319" id="Page_319">[319]</a></span></p> - - - - -<h3 class="nobreak"><a name="CHAPTER_XVII" id="CHAPTER_XVII">CHAPTER XVII</a><br /> - -<span class="larger">PROGRESS OR DECAY?</span></h3> -</div> - -<div class="blockquot chaptersummary"> - -<p>§ 1. Linguistic Estimation. § 2. Degeneration? § 3. Appreciation of Modern -Tongues. § 4. The Scientific Attitude. § 5. Final Answer. § 6. -Sounds. § 7. Shortenings. § 8. Objections. Result. § 9. Verbal -Forms. § 10. Synthesis and Analysis. § 11. Verbal Concord.</p></div> - - -<h4>XVII.—§ 1. Linguistic Estimation.</h4> - -<p>The common belief of linguists that one form or one expression -is just as good as another, provided they are both found in actual -use, and that each language is to be considered a perfect vehicle -for the thoughts of the nation speaking it, is in some ways the -exact counterpart of the conviction of the Manchester school of -economics that everything is for the best in the best of all possible -worlds if only no artificial hindrances are put in the way of free -exchange, for demand and supply will regulate everything better -than any Government would be able to. Just as economists were -blind to the numerous cases in which actual wants, even crying -wants, were not satisfied, so also linguists were deaf to those instances -which are, however, obvious to whoever has once turned -his attention to them, in which the very structure of a language -calls forth misunderstandings in everyday conversation, and in -which, consequently, a word has to be repeated or modified or -expanded or defined in order to call forth the idea intended by -the speaker: he took his stick—no, not John’s, but <em>his own</em>; -or: I mean <em>you</em> in the plural (or, you all, or you girls); no, a -<i>box on the ear</i>; <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">un dé à jouer, non pas un dé à coudre</i>; <span lang="de" xml:lang="de">nein, ich -meine <em>Sie persönlich</em></span> (with very strong stress on <em>Sie</em>), etc. Every -careful writer in any language has had the experience that on -re-reading his manuscript he has discovered that a sentence which -he thought perfectly clear when he wrote it lends itself to misunderstanding -and has to be put in a different way; sometimes -he has to add a clarifying parenthesis, because his language is -defective in some respect, as when Edward Carpenter (<cite>Art of -Creation</cite> 171), in speaking of the deification of the Babe, writes: -“It is not likely that Man—the human male—left to himself -would have done this; but to woman it was natural,” thus avoiding -the misunderstanding that he was speaking of the whole species,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_320" id="Page_320">[320]</a></span> -comprising both sexes. Herbert Spencer writes: “Charles had -recently obtained—a post in the Post Office I was about to say, -but the cacophony stopped me; and then I was about to say, -an office in the Post Office, which is nearly as bad; let me say—a -place in the Post Office” (<cite>Autobiogr.</cite> 2. 73—but of course the -defect is not really one of sound, as implied by the expression -‘cacophony,’ but one of signification, as both words <i>post</i> and -<i>office</i> are ambiguous, and the attempted collocation would therefore -puzzle the reader or hearer, because the same word would have -to be apprehended in two different senses in close succession). -Similar instances might be alleged from any language.</p> - -<p>No language is perfect, but if we admit this truth (or truism), -we must also admit by implication that it is not unreasonable -to investigate the relative value of different languages or of different -details in languages. When comparative linguists set themselves -against the narrowmindedness of classical scholars who thought -Latin and Greek the only worthy objects of study, and emphasized -the value of all, even the least literary languages and dialects, -they were primarily thinking of their value to the scientist, who -finds something of interest in each of them, but they had no idea -of comparing the relative value of languages from the point of -view of their users—and yet the latter comparison is of much -greater importance than the former.</p> - - -<h4>XVII.—§ 2. Degeneration?</h4> - -<p>People will often use the expressions ‘evolution’ and ‘development’ -in connexion with language, but most linguists, when taken -to task, will maintain that these expressions as applied to languages -should be used without the implication which is commonly attached -to them when used of other objects, namely, that there is a progressive -tendency towards something better or nearer perfection. -They will say that ‘evolution’ means here simply changes going -on in languages, without any judgment as to the value of these -changes.</p> - -<p>But those who do pronounce such a judgment nearly always -take the changes as a retrogressive rather than a progressive -development: “Tongues, like governments, have a natural tendency -to degeneration,” said Dr. Samuel Johnson in the Preface -to his Dictionary, and the same lament has been often repeated -since his time. This is quite natural: people have always had -a tendency to believe in a golden age, that is, in a remote past -gloriously different to the miserable present. Why not, then, -have the same belief with regard to language, the more so because -one cannot fail to notice things in contemporary speech which<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_321" id="Page_321">[321]</a></span> -(superficially at any rate) look like corruptions of the ‘good old’ -forms? Everything ‘old’ thus comes to be considered ‘good.’ -Lowell and others think they have justified many of the commonly -reviled Americanisms if they are able to show them to have existed -in England in the sixteenth century, and similar considerations -are met with everywhere. The same frame of mind finds support -in the usual grammar-school admiration for the two classical -languages and their literatures. People were taught to look -down upon modern languages as mere dialects or <i>patois</i> and to -worship Greek and Latin; the richness and fullness of forms found -in those languages came naturally to be considered the very <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">beau -idéal</i> of linguistic structure. Bacon gives a classical expression -to this view when he declares “<span lang="la" xml:lang="la">ingenia priorum seculorum nostris -fuisse multo acutiora et subtiliora</span>” (<cite lang="la" xml:lang="la">De augm. scient.</cite><a name="FNanchor_79_79" id="FNanchor_79_79"></a><a href="#Footnote_79_79" class="fnanchor">[79]</a>). To men -fresh from the ordinary grammar-school training, no language -would seem really respectable that had not four or five distinct -cases and three genders, or that had less than five tenses and as -many moods in its verbs. Accordingly, such poor languages as -had either lost much of their original richness in grammatical -forms (<i>e.g.</i> French, English, or Danish), or had never had any, so -far as one knew (<i>e.g.</i> Chinese), were naturally looked upon with -something of the pity bestowed on relatives in reduced circumstances, -or the contempt felt for foreign paupers. It is well known -how in West-European languages, in English, German, Danish, -Swedish, Dutch, French, etc., obsolete forms were artificially kept -alive and preferred to younger forms by most grammarians; but -we see exactly the same point of view in such a language as Magyar, -where, under the influence of the historical studies of the grammarian -Révai, the belief in the excellence of the ‘<span lang="la" xml:lang="la">veneranda antiquitas</span>’ -as compared with the corruption of the modern language has -been prevalent in schools and in literature. (See Simonyi US 259; -cf. on Modern Greek and Telugu above, p. 301.)</p> - -<p>Comparative linguists had one more reason for adopting this -manner of estimating languages. To what had the great victories -won by their science been due? Whence had they got the material -for that magnificent edifice which had proved spacious enough -to hold Hindus and Persians, Lithuanians and Slavs, Greeks, -Romans, Germans and Kelts? Surely it was neither from -Modern English nor Modern Danish, but from the oldest stages of -each linguistic group. The older a linguistic document was, the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_322" id="Page_322">[322]</a></span> -more valuable it was to the first generation of comparative linguists. -An English form like <i>had</i> was of no great use, but Gothic <i>habaidedeima</i> -was easily picked to pieces, and each of its several elements -lent itself capitally to comparison with Sanskrit, Lithuanian and -Greek. The linguist was chiefly dependent for his material on -the old and archaic languages; his interest centred round their -fuller forms: what wonder, then, if in his opinion those languages -were superior to all others? What wonder if by comparing <i>had</i> -and <i>habaidedeima</i> he came to regard the English form as a mutilated -and worn-out relic of a splendid original? or if, noting the change -from the old to the modern form, he used strong language and -spoke of degeneration, corruption, depravation, decline, phonetic -decay, etc.?</p> - -<p>The view that the modern languages of Europe, Persia and -India are far inferior to the old languages, or the one old language, -from which they descend, we have already encountered in the -historical part of this work, in Bopp, Humboldt, Grimm and their -followers. It looms very large in Schleicher, according to whom -the history of language is all a Decline and Fall, and in Max Müller, -who says that “on the whole, the history of all the Aryan languages -is nothing but a gradual process of decay.” Nor is it yet quite -extinct.</p> - - -<h4>XVII.—§ 3. Appreciation of Modern Tongues.</h4> - -<p>Some scholars, however, had an indistinct feeling that this -unconditional and wholesale depreciation of modern languages -could not contain the whole truth, and I have collected various -passages, nearly always of a perfunctory or incidental character, -in which these languages are partly rehabilitated. Humboldt -(Versch 284) speaks of the modern use of auxiliary verbs and -prepositions as a convenience of the intellect which may even in -some isolated instances lead to greater definiteness. On Grimm -see above, p. <a href="#Page_62">62</a>. Rask (SA 1. 191) says that it is possible that the -advantages of simplicity may be greater than those of an -elaborate linguistic structure. Madvig turns against the uncritical -admiration of the classical languages, but does not go further -than saying that the modern analytical languages are just as -good as the old synthetic ones, for thoughts can be expressed in -both with equal clearness. Kräuter (<cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Archiv f. neu. spr.</cite> 57. 204) -says: “That decay is consistent with clearness and precision -is shown by French; that it is not fatal to poetry is seen in the -language of Shakespeare.” Osthoff (<cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Schriftspr. u. Volksmundart</cite>, -1883, 13) protests against a one-sided depreciation of the language -of Lessing and Goethe in favour of the language of Wulfila or<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_323" id="Page_323">[323]</a></span> -Otfried, or vice versa: a language possesses an inestimable charm -if its phonetic system remains unimpaired and its etymologies -are transparent; but pliancy of the material of language and -flexibility to express ideas is really no less an advantage; everything -depends on the point of view: the student of architecture -has one point of view, the people who are to live in the house -another.</p> - -<p>Among those who thus half-heartedly refused to accept the -downhill theory to its full extent must be mentioned Whitney, -many passages in whose writings show a certain hesitation to -make up his mind on this question. When speaking of the loss -of old forms he says that “some of these could well be spared, -but others were valuable, and their relinquishment has impaired -the power of expression of the language.” To phonetic corruption -we owe true grammatical forms, which make the wealth of every -inflective language; but it is also destructive of the very edifice -which it has helped to build. He speaks of “the legitimate -tendency to neglect and eliminate distinctions which are practically -unnecessary,” and will not admit “that we can speak our minds -any less distinctly than our ancestors could, with all their apparatus -of inflexions”; gender is a luxury which any language can well -afford to dispense with, but language is impoverished by the -obliteration of the subjunctive mood. The giving up of grammatical -endings is akin to wastefulness, and the excessive loss in English -makes truly for decay (L 31, 73, 74, 76, 77, 84, 85; G 51, 105, 104).</p> - - -<h4>XVII.—§ 4. The Scientific Attitude.</h4> - -<p>Why are all such expressions either of depreciation or of partial -appreciation of the modern languages so utterly unsatisfactory? -One reason is that they are so vague and dependent on a general -feeling of inferiority or the reverse, instead of being based on a -detailed comparative estimation of real facts in linguistic structure. -If, therefore, we want to arrive at a scientific answer to the question -“Decay or progress?” we must examine actual instances of changes, -but must take particular care that these instances are not chosen -at random, but are typical and characteristic of the total structure -of the languages concerned. What is wanted is not a comparison -of isolated facts, but the establishment of general laws and tendencies, -for only through such can we hope to decide whether -or no we are justified in using terms like ‘development’ and -‘evolution’ in linguistic history.</p> - -<p>The second reason why the earlier pronouncements quoted -above do not satisfy us is that their authors nowhere raise the -question of the method by which linguistic value is to be measured,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_324" id="Page_324">[324]</a></span> -by what standard and what tests the comparative merits of -languages or of forms are to be ascertained. Those linguists -who looked upon language as a product of nature were by that -very fact precluded from establishing a rational basis for determining -linguistic values; nor is it possible to find one if we look -at things from the one-sided point of view of the linguistic historian. -An almost comical instance of this is found when Curtius (<cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Sprachwiss. -u. class. phil.</cite> 39) says that the Greek accusative <i>póda</i> is -better than Sanskrit <i>padam</i>, because it is possible at once to see -that it belongs to the third declension. What is to be taken into -account is of course the interests of the speaking community, -and if we consistently consider language as a set of human actions -with a definite end in view, namely, the communication of thoughts -and feelings, then it becomes easy to find tests by which to measure -linguistic values, for from that point of view it is evident that -<span class="smcap lowercase">THAT LANGUAGE RANKS HIGHEST WHICH GOES FARTHEST IN THE -ART OF ACCOMPLISHING MUCH WITH LITTLE MEANS, OR, IN OTHER -WORDS, WHICH IS ABLE TO EXPRESS THE GREATEST AMOUNT OF -MEANING WITH THE SIMPLEST MECHANISM.</span></p> - -<p>The estimation has to be thoroughly and frankly <em>anthropocentric</em>. -This may be a defect in other sciences, in which it is -a merit on the part of the investigator to be able to abstract -himself from human considerations; in linguistics, on the contrary, -on account of the very nature of the object of study, one must -constantly look to the human interest, and judge everything from -that, and from no other, point of view. Otherwise we run the -risk of going astray in all directions.</p> - -<p>It will be noticed that my formula contains two requirements: -it demands a maximum of efficiency and a minimum of effort. -Efficiency means expressiveness, and effort means bodily and -mental labour, and thus the formula is simply one of modern -energetics. But unfortunately we are in possession of no method -by which to measure either expressiveness or effort exactly, and -in cases of conflict it may be difficult to decide to which of the -two sides we are to attach the greater importance, how great a -surplus of efficiency is required to counterbalance a surplus -of exertion, or inversely. Still, in many cases no doubt can -arise, and we are often able to state progress, because there -is either a clear gain in efficiency or a diminution of exertion, -or both.</p> - -<p>There is one objection which is likely to present itself to many -of my readers, namely, that natives handle their language without -the least exertion or effort (cf. XIV § 6, p. <a href="#Page_262">262</a>). Madvig (1857, -73 ff. = Kl 260 ff.) admits that a simplification in linguistic structure -will make the language easier to learn for foreigners, but denies<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_325" id="Page_325">[325]</a></span> -that it means increased ease for the native. Similarly Wechssler -(L 149) says that “<span lang="de" xml:lang="de">der begriff der schwierigkeit und unbequemheit -für die einheimischen nicht existiert</span>.” I might quote against -him his countryman Gabelentz, who expressly says that the difficulties -of the German languages are felt by natives, a view that -is endorsed by Schuchardt in various places.<a name="FNanchor_80_80" id="FNanchor_80_80"></a><a href="#Footnote_80_80" class="fnanchor">[80]</a> To my mind there -is not the slightest doubt that different languages differ very -much in easiness even to native speakers. In the chapters devoted -to children we have already seen that the numerous mistakes -made by them in every possible way testify to the labour involved -in learning one’s own language. This labour must naturally be -greater in the case of a highly complicated linguistic structure -with many rules and still more exceptions to the rules, than in -languages constructed simply and regularly.</p> - -<p>Nor is the difficulty of correct speech confined to the first -mastering of the language. Even to the native who has spoken -the same language from a child, its daily use involves no small -amount of exertion. Under ordinary circumstances he is not -conscious of any exertion in speaking; but such a want of conscious -feeling is no proof that the exertion is absent. And it is -a strong argument to the contrary that it is next to impossible -for you to speak correctly if you are suffering from excessive -mental work; you will constantly make slips in grammar and -idiom as well as in pronunciation; you have not the same command -of language as under normal conditions. If you have to -speak on a difficult and unfamiliar subject, on which you would -not like to say anything but what is to the point or strictly justifiable, -you will sometimes find that the thoughts themselves claim -so much mental energy that there is none left for speaking with -elegance, or even with complete regard to grammar: to your -own vexation you will have a feeling that your phrases are confused -and your language incorrect. A pianist may practise a difficult -piece of music so as to have it “at his fingers’ ends”; under -ordinary circumstances he will be able to play it quite mechanically, -without ever being conscious of effort; but, nevertheless, the -effort is there. How great the effort is appears when some -day or other the musician is ‘out of humour,’ that is, when -his brain is at work on other subjects or is not in its usual -working order. At once his execution will be stumbling and -faulty.</p> -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_326" id="Page_326">[326]</a></span></p> - -<h4>XVII.—§ 5. Final Answer.</h4> - -<p>I may here anticipate the results of the following investigation -and say that in all those instances in which we are able to examine -the history of any language for a sufficient length of time, we -find that languages have a progressive tendency. But if languages -progress towards greater perfection, it is not in a bee-line, nor -are all the changes we witness to be considered steps in the right -direction. The only thing I maintain is that <em>the sum total of these -changes, when we compare a remote period with the present time, -shows a surplus of progressive over retrogressive or indifferent changes</em>, -so that the structure of modern languages is nearer perfection -than that of ancient languages, if we take them as wholes instead -of picking out at random some one or other more or less significant -detail. And of course it must not be imagined that progress -has been achieved through deliberate acts of men conscious -that they were improving their mother-tongue. On the contrary, -many a step in advance has at first been a slip or even a -blunder, and, as in other fields of human activity, good results -have only been won after a good deal of bungling and ‘muddling -along.’<a name="FNanchor_81_81" id="FNanchor_81_81"></a><a href="#Footnote_81_81" class="fnanchor">[81]</a> My attitude towards this question is the same as that -of Leslie Stephen, who writes in a letter (<cite>Life</cite> 454): “I have a -perhaps unreasonable amount of belief, not in a millennium, but -in the world on the whole blundering rather forwards than -backwards.”</p> - -<p>Schleicher on one occasion used the fine simile: “Our words, -as contrasted with Gothic words, are like a statue that has been -rolling for a long time in the bed of a river till its beautiful limbs -have been worn off, so that now scarcely anything remains but a -polished stone cylinder with faint indications of what it once was” -(D 34). Let us turn the tables by asking: Suppose, however, -that it would be quite out of the question to place the statue on -a pedestal to be admired; what if, on the one hand, it was not -ornamental enough as a work of art, and if, on the other hand, -human well-being was at stake if it was not serviceable in a rolling-mill: -which would then be the better—a rugged and unwieldy -statue, making difficulties at every rotation, or an even, smooth, -easygoing and well-oiled roller?</p> - -<p>After these preliminary considerations we may now proceed -to a comparative examination of the chief differences between -ancient and modern stages of our Western European languages.</p> -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_327" id="Page_327">[327]</a></span></p> - -<h4><a id="XVII_6"></a>XVII.—§ 6. Sounds.</h4> - -<p>The student who goes through the chapters devoted to sound -changes in historical and comparative grammars will have great -difficulty in getting at any great lines of development or general -tendencies: everything seems just haphazard and fortuitous; a -long <i>i</i> is here shortened and there diphthongized or lowered into <i>e</i>, -etc. The history of sounds is dependent on surroundings in many, -though not in all circumstances, but surroundings do not always -act in the same way; in short, there seem to be so many conflicting -tendencies that no universal or even general rules can be -evolved from all these ‘sound laws.’ Still less would it seem -possible to state anything about the comparative value of the -forms before and after the change, for it does not seem to matter -a bit for the speaking community whether it says <i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">stān</i> as in Old -English or <i>stone</i> as now, and thus in innumerable cases. Nay, -from one point of view it may seem that any change militates -against the object of language (cf. Wechssler L 28), but this is -true only of the very moment when the change sets in while people -are accustomed to the old sound (or the old signification), and -even then the change is only injurious provided it impedes understanding -or renders understanding less easy, which is far from -always being the case.</p> - -<p>There is one scholar who has asserted the existence of a universal -progressive tendency in languages, or, as he calls it, a -humanization of language, namely Baudouin de Courtenay (<cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Vermenschlichung -der Sprache</cite>, 1893). He is chiefly thinking of the -sound system,<a name="FNanchor_82_82" id="FNanchor_82_82"></a><a href="#Footnote_82_82" class="fnanchor">[82]</a> and he maintains that there is a tendency towards -eliminating the innermost articulations and using instead sounds -that are formed nearer to the teeth and lips. Thus some back -(postpalatal, velar) consonants become <i>p</i>, <i>b</i>, while others develop -into <i>s</i> sounds; cf. Slav <i>slovo</i> ‘word’ with Lat. <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">cluo</i>, etc. Baudouin -also mentions the frequent palatalization of back consonants, as in -French and Italian <i>ce</i>, <i>ci</i>, <i>ge</i>, <i>gi</i>, but as this is due to the influence -of the following front vowel, it should not perhaps be mentioned -as a universal tendency of human language. It is further said -that throat sounds, which play such a great rôle in Semitic languages, -have been discarded in most modern languages. But it may be -objected that sometimes throat sounds do develop in modern -periods, as in the Danish ‘stød’ and in English dialectal <i>bu’er</i> for<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_328" id="Page_328">[328]</a></span> -<i>butter</i>, etc. A universal tendency of sounds to move away from -the throat cannot be said to be firmly established; but for our -purpose it is more important to say that even were it true, the -value of such a tendency for the speaking community would not -be great enough to justify us in speaking of progress towards a -truly ‘human’ language as opposed to the more beastlike language -of our primeval ancestors. It is true that Baudouin (p. 25) says -that it is possible to articulate in the front and upper part with -less effort and with greater precision than in the interior and -lower parts of the speaking apparatus, but if this is true with regard -to the mouth proper, it cannot be maintained with regard to the -vocal chords, where very important effects may be produced in the -most precise way by infinitely little exertion. Thus in no single -point can I see that Baudouin de Courtenay has made out a strong -case for <em>his</em> conception of ‘humanization of language.’</p> - - -<h4><a id="XVII_7"></a>XVII.—§ 7. Shortenings.</h4> - -<p>But there is another phonetic tendency which is much more -universal and infinitely more valuable than the one asserted by -Baudouin de Courtenay, namely, the tendency to shorten words. -Words get shorter and shorter in consequence of a great many -of those changes that we see constantly going on in all languages: -vowels in weak syllables are pronounced more and more indistinctly -and finally disappear altogether, as when OE. <i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">lufu</i>, <i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">stānas</i>, -<i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">sende</i>, through ME. <i lang="enm" xml:lang="enm">luve</i>, <i lang="enm" xml:lang="enm">stanes</i>, <i lang="enm" xml:lang="enm">sende</i> with pronounced <i>e</i>’s, have -become our modern monosyllables <i>love</i>, <i>stones</i>, <i>send</i>, or when -Latin <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">bonum</i>, <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">homo</i>, <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">viginti</i> have become Fr. <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bon</i>, <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">on</i>, <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">vingt</i>, and -Lat. <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">bona</i>, <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">hominem</i>, Fr. <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bonne</i>, <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">homme</i>, where the vowel was kept, -because it was <i>a</i> or protected by the consonant group, but has -now also disappeared in normal pronunciation. Final vowels -have been dropped extensively in Danish and German dialects, -and so have the <i>u</i>’s and <i>i</i>’s in Russian, which are now kept in the -spelling merely as signs of the quality of the preceding consonant. -It would be easy to multiply instances. Nor are the consonants -more stable; the dropping of final ones is seen most easily in -Modern French, because they are retained in spelling, as in <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">tout</i>, -<i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">vers</i>, <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">champ</i>, <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">chant</i>, etc. In the two last examples two consonants -have disappeared, the <i>m</i> and <i>n</i>, however, leaving a trace -in the nasalized pronunciation of the vowel, as also in <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bon</i>, <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">nom</i>, -etc. Final <i>r</i> and <i>l</i> often disappear in Fr. words like <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">quatre</i>, <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">simple</i>, -and medial consonants have been dropped in such cases as <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">côte</i> -from <i>coste</i>, <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bête</i> from <i>beste</i>, <i>sauf</i> [so·f] from <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">salvo</i>, etc. We have -corresponding omissions in English, where in very old times <i>n</i> -was dropped in such cases as <i>us</i>, <i>five</i>, <i>other</i>, while the German<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_329" id="Page_329">[329]</a></span> -forms <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">uns</i>, <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">fünf</i>, <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">ander</i> have kept the old consonants; in more -recent times <i>l</i> was dropped in <i>half</i>, <i>calm</i>, etc., <i>gh</i> [x] in <i>light</i>, <i>bought</i>, -etc., and <i>r</i> in the prevalent pronunciation of <i>warm</i>, <i>part</i>, etc. Initial -consonants are more firmly fixed in many languages, yet we see -them lost in the E. combinations <i>kn</i>, <i>gn</i>, <i>wr</i>, where <i>k</i>, <i>g</i>, <i>w</i> used to -be sounded, e.g. in <i>know</i>, <i>gnaw</i>, <i>wrong</i>. Consonant assimilation -means in most cases the same thing as dropping of one consonant, -for no trace of the consonant is left, at any rate after the compensating -lengthening has been given up, as is often the case, e.g. in -E. <i>cupboard</i>, <i>blackguard</i> [kʌbəd, blæga·d].</p> - -<p>So far we have given instances of what might be called the most -regular or constant types of phonetic change leading to shorter -forms; but the same result is the natural outcome of a process -which occurs more sporadically. This is haplology, by which one -sound or one group of sounds is pronounced once only instead of -twice, the hearer taking it through a kind of acoustic delusion as -belonging both to what precedes and to what follows. Examples -are <i>a goo(d) deal</i>, <i>wha(t) to do</i>, <i>nex(t) time</i>, <i>simp(le)ly</i>, <i>England</i> -from <i>Englaland</i>, <i>eighteen</i> from OE. <i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">eahtatiene</i>, <i>honesty</i> from -<i>honestete</i>, <i>Glou(ce)ster</i>, <i>Worcester</i> [wustə], familiarly <i>pro(ba)bly</i>, -vulgarly <i>lib(ra)ry</i>, <i>Febr(uar)y</i>. From other languages may be -quoted Fr. <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">cont(re)rôle</i>, <i>ido(lo)lâtre</i>, <i>Neu(ve)ville</i>, Lat. <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">nu(tri)trix</i>, -<i lang="la" xml:lang="la">sti(pi)pendium</i>, It. <i lang="it" xml:lang="it">qual(che)cosa</i>, <i lang="it" xml:lang="it">cosa</i> for <i lang="it" xml:lang="it">che cosa</i>, etc. (Cf. my -LPh 11. 9.)</p> - -<p>The accumulation through centuries of such influences results -in those instances of seemingly violent contractions with -which every student of historical linguistics is familiar. One -classical example has already been mentioned above, E. <i>had</i>, -corresponding to Gothic <i>habaidedeima</i>; other examples are <i>lord</i>, -with its three or four sounds, which was formerly <i>laverd</i>, and in -Old English <i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">hlāford</i>; the old Gothonic form of the same word -contained indubitably as many as twelve sounds; Latin <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">augustum</i> -has in French through <i>aoust</i> become <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">août</i>, pronounced [au] or even -[u]; Latin <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">oculum</i> has shrunk into four sounds in Italian <i lang="it" xml:lang="it">occhio</i>, -three in Spanish <i lang="es" xml:lang="es">ojo</i>, and two in Fr. <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">œil</i>; It. <i lang="it" xml:lang="it">medesimo</i>, Sp. <i lang="es" xml:lang="es">mismo</i> -and Fr. <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">même</i> represent various stages of the shrinking of -Lat. <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">metipsimum</i>; cf. also Fr. <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">ménage</i> from <i>mansion-</i> + <i>-aticum</i>. -Primitive Norse <i>ne veit ek hvat</i> ‘not know I what’ has -become Dan. <i lang="da" xml:lang="da">noget</i> ‘something,’ often pronounced [no·ð] or -[nɔ·ð].</p> - -<p>In all these cases the shortening process has taken centuries, -but we have other instances in which it has come about quite -suddenly, without any intermediate stages, namely, in those -stump-words which we have already considered (Ch. IX § <a href="#IX_7">7</a>; cf. -XIV § <a href="#XIV_12">12</a> on corresponding syntactical shortenings).</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_330" id="Page_330">[330]</a></span></p> - - -<h4>XVII.—§ 8. Objections. Result.</h4> - -<p>There cannot therefore be the slightest doubt that the general -tendency of all languages is towards shorter and shorter forms: -the ancient languages of our family, Sanskrit, Zend, etc., abound -in very long words; the further back we go, the greater the number -of <i>sesquipedalia</i>. It cannot justly be objected that we see sometimes -examples of phonetic lengthenings, as in E. <i>sound</i> from ME. -<i lang="enm" xml:lang="enm">soun</i>, Fr. <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">son</i>, E. <i>whilst</i>, <i>amongst</i> from ME. <i lang="enm" xml:lang="enm">whiles</i>, <i lang="enm" xml:lang="enm">amonges</i>; a -similar excrescence of <i>t</i> after <i>s</i> is seen in G. <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">obst</i>, <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">pabst</i>, Swed. <i lang="sv" xml:lang="sv">eljest</i> -and others; after <i>n</i>, <i>t</i> is added in G. <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">jemand</i>, <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">niemand</i> (two syllables, -while there is nothing added to the trisyllabic <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">jedermann</i>)—for -even if such instances might be multiplied, their number and -importance is infinitely smaller than those in the opposite direction. -(On the seeming insertion of <i>d</i> in <i>ndr</i>, see p. 264, <a href="#Footnote_58_58">note</a>). In some -cases we witness a certain reaction against word forms that are -felt to be too short and therefore too indistinct (see Ch. XV § <a href="#XV_1">1</a>, -XX § <a href="#XX_9">9</a>), but on the whole such instances are few and far between: -the prevailing tendency is towards shorter forms.</p> - -<p>Another objection must be dealt with here. It is said that -it is only the purely phonetic development that tends to make -words shorter, but that in languages as wholes words do not become -shorter, because non-phonetic forces counteract the tendency. -In modern languages we thus have some analogical formations -which are longer than the forms they have supplanted, as when -<i>books</i> has one sound more than OE. <i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">bēc</i>, or when G. <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">bewegte</i> takes the -place of <i>bewog</i>. Further, we have in modern languages many auxiliary -words (prepositions, modal verbs) in places where they were -formerly not required. That this objection is not valid if we -take the whole of the language into consideration may perhaps -be proved statistically if we compute the length of the same long -text in various languages: the Gospel of St. Matthew contains -in Greek about 39,000 syllables, in Swedish about 35,000, in German -33,000, in Danish 32,500, in English 29,000, and in Chinese only -17,000 (the figures for the Authorized English Version and for -Danish are my own calculation; the other figures I take from -Tegnér SM 51, Hoops in <cite>Anglia</cite>, <cite>Beiblatt</cite> 1896, 293, and Sturtevant -LCh 175). In comparing these figures it should even be taken -into consideration that translations naturally tend to be more -long-winded and verbose than the original, so that the real gain -in shortness may be greater than indicated.<a name="FNanchor_83_83" id="FNanchor_83_83"></a><a href="#Footnote_83_83" class="fnanchor">[83]</a></p> -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_331" id="Page_331">[331]</a></span></p> -<p>Next, we come to consider the question whether the tendency -towards shorter forms is a valuable asset in the development of -languages or the reverse. The answer cannot be doubtful. Take -the old example, English <i>had</i> and Gothic <i>habaidedeima</i>: the -English form is preferable, on the principle that anyone who has -to choose between walking one mile and four miles will, other -things being equal, prefer the shorter cut. It is true that if we -take words to be self-existing natural objects, <i>habaidedeima</i> has -the air of a giant and <i>had</i> of a mere pigmy: this valuation lies -at the bottom of many utterances even by recent linguistic thinkers, -as when Sweet (H 10) speaks of the vanishing of sounds as “a -purely destructive change.” But if we adopt the anthropocentric -standard which has been explained above, and realize that what -we call a word is really and primarily the combined action of -human muscles to produce an audible effect, we see that the shortening -of a form means a diminution of effort and a saving of time -in the communication of our thoughts. If, as it is said, <i>had</i> has -suffered from wear and tear in the long course of time, this means -that the wear and tear of people now using this form in their speech -is less than if they were still encumbered with the old giant <i>habaidedeima</i>. -Voltaire was certainly very wide of the mark when -he wrote: “<span lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">C’est le propre des barbares d’abréger les mots</span>”—long -and clumsy words are rather to be considered as signs -of barbarism, and short and nimble ones as signs of advanced -culture.</p> - -<p>Though I thus hold that the development towards shorter -forms of expression is <em>on the whole</em> progressive, i.e. beneficial, I -should not like to be too dogmatic on this point and assert that -it is <em>always</em> beneficial: shortness may be carried to excess and -thus cause obscurity or difficulty of understanding. This may -be seen in the telegraphic style as well as in the literary style of -some writers too anxious to avoid prolixity (some of Pope’s lines -might be quoted in illustration of the classical: <span lang="la" xml:lang="la">brevis esse laboro, -obscurus fio</span>). But in the case of the language of a whole community -the danger certainly is very small indeed, for there will -always be a natural and wholesome reaction against such excessive -shortness. There is another misunderstanding I want to guard -against when saying that the shortening makes on the whole -for progress. It must not be thought that I lay undue stress -on this point, which is after all chiefly concerned with a greater -or smaller amount of physical or muscular exertion: this should -neither be underrated nor overrated; but it will be seen that -neither in my former work nor in this does the consideration of -this point of mere shortness or length take up more than a fraction -of the space allotted to the more psychical sides of the question,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_332" id="Page_332">[332]</a></span> -to which we shall now turn our attention and to which I attach -much more importance.</p> - - -<h4>XVII.—§ 9. Verbal Forms.</h4> - -<p>We may here recur to Schleicher’s example, E. <i>had</i> and Gothic -<i>habaidedeima</i>. It is not only in regard to economy of muscular -exertion that the former carries the day over the latter. <i>Had</i> -corresponds not only to <i>habaidedeima</i>, but it unites in one short -form everything expressed by the Gothic <i>habaida</i>, <i>habaides</i>, <i>habaidedu</i>, -<i>habaideduts</i>, <i>habaidedum</i>, <i>habaideduþ</i>, <i>habaidedun</i>, <i>habaidedjau</i>, -<i>habaidedeis</i>, <i>habaidedi</i>, <i>habaidedeiwa</i>, <i>habaidedeits</i>, <i>habaidedeima</i>, -<i>habaidedeiþ</i>, <i>habaidedeina</i>—separate forms for two or three persons -in three numbers in two distinct moods! It is clear, therefore, -that the English form saves a considerable amount of brainwork -to all English-speaking people—not only to children, who have -fewer forms to learn, but also to adults, who have fewer forms -to choose between and to keep distinct whenever they open their -mouths to speak. Someone might, perhaps, say that on the -other hand English people are obliged always to join personal -pronouns to their verbal forms to indicate the person, and that -this is a drawback counterbalancing the advantage, so that the -net result is six of one and half a dozen of the other. This, however, -would be a very superficial objection. For, in the first place, -the personal pronouns are the same for all tenses and moods, but -the endings are not. Secondly, the possession of endings does -not exempt the Goths from having separate personal pronouns; -and whenever these are used, as is very often the case in the first -and second persons, those parts of the verbal endings which -indicate persons are superfluous. They are no less superfluous -in those extremely numerous cases in which the subject is either -separately expressed by a noun or is understood from the preceding -proposition, thus in the vast majority of the cases of the third -person. If we compare a few pages of Old English prose with a -modern rendering we shall see that in spite of the reduction in -the latter of the person-indicating endings, personal pronouns are -not required in any great number of sentences in which they were -dispensed with in Old English. So that, altogether, the numerous -endings of the older languages must be considered uneconomical.</p> - -<p>If Gothic, Latin and Greek, etc., burden the memory by the number -of their flexional endings, they do so even more by the many -irregularities in the formation of these endings. In all the languages -of this type, anomaly and flexion invariably go together. -The intricacies of verbal flexion in Latin and Greek are well known, -and it requires no small amount of mental energy to master the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_333" id="Page_333">[333]</a></span> -various modes of forming the present stems in Sanskrit—to take -only one instance. Many of these irregularities disappear in -course of time, chiefly, but not exclusively, through analogical -formations, and though it is true that a certain number of new -irregularities may come into existence, their number is relatively -small when compared with those that have been removed. Now, -it is not only the forms themselves that are irregular in the early -languages, but also their uses: logical simplicity prevails much -more in Modern English syntax than in either Old English or -Latin or Greek. But it is hardly necessary to point out that -growing regularity in a language means a considerable gain to all -those who learn it or speak it.</p> - -<p>It has been said, however, by one of the foremost authorities -on the history of English, that “in spite of the many changes -which this system [i.e. the complicated system of strong verbs] -has undergone in detail, it remains just as intricate as it was in -Old English” (Bradley, <cite>The Making of English</cite> 51). It is true -that the way in which vowel change is utilized to form tenses -is rather complicated in Modern English (<i>drink</i> <i>drank</i>, <i>give</i> <i>gave</i>, -<i>hold</i> <i>held</i>, etc.), but otherwise an enormous simplification has taken -place. The personal endings have been discarded with the exception -of <i>-s</i> in the third person singular of the present (and the -obsolete ending <i>-est</i> in the second person, and then this has been -regularized, <i>thou sangest</i> having taken the place of <i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">þu sunge</i>); the -change of vowel in <i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">ic sang</i>, <i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">þu sunge</i>, <i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">we sungon</i> in the indicative -and <i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">ic sunge</i>, <i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">we sungen</i> in the subjunctive has been given up, -and so has the accompanying change of consonant in many cases. -Thus, instead of the following forms, <i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">cēosan</i>, <i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">cēose</i>, <i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">cēoseþ</i>, <i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">cēosaþ</i>, -<i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">cēosen</i>, <i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">cēas</i>, <i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">curon</i>, <i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">cure</i>, <i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">curen</i>, <i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">coren</i>, we have the following modern -ones, which are both fewer in number and less irregular: <i>choose</i>, -<i>chooses</i>, <i>chose</i>, <i>chosen</i>—certainly an advance from a more to a less -intricate system (cf. GS § 178).</p> - -<p>An extreme, but by no means unique example of the simplification -found in modern languages is the English <i>cut</i>, which can -serve both as present and past tense, both as singular and plural, -both in the first, second and third persons, both in the infinitive, -in the imperative, in the indicative, in the subjunctive, and as a -past (or passive) participle; compare with this the old languages -with their separate forms for different tenses, moods, numbers -and persons; and remember, moreover, that the identical form, -without any inconvenience being occasioned, is also used as a -noun (<i>a cut</i>), and you will admire the economy of the living tongue. -A characteristic feature of the structure of languages in their -early stages is that each form contains in itself several minor -modifications which are often in the later stages expressed separately<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_334" id="Page_334">[334]</a></span> -by means of auxiliary words. Such a word as Latin <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">cantavisset</i> -unites into one inseparable whole the equivalents of six ideas: -(1) ‘sing,’ (2) pluperfect, (3) that indefinite modification of the -verbal idea which we term subjunctive, (4) active, (5) third person, -and (6) singular.</p> - - -<h4>XVII.—§ 10. Synthesis and Analysis.</h4> - -<p>Such a form, therefore, is much more concrete than the forms -found in modern languages, of which sometimes two or more -have to be combined to express the composite notion which was -rendered formerly by one. Now, it is one of the consequences -of this change that it has become easier to express certain minute, -but by no means unimportant, shades of thought by laying extra -stress on some particular element in the speech-group. Latin -<i lang="la" xml:lang="la">cantaveram</i> amalgamates into one indissoluble whole what in E. -<i>I had sung</i> is analysed into three components, so that you can at -will accentuate the personal element, the time element or the -action. Now, it is possible (who can affirm and who can deny it?) -that the Romans could, if necessary, make some difference in -speech between<span lang="la" xml:lang="la"> <i>cántaveram</i> (non saltaveram)</span> ‘I had <em>sung</em>,’ and -<span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><i>cantaverám</i> (non cantabam)</span>, ‘I <em>had</em> sung’; but even then, if it -was the personal element which was to be emphasized, an <i>ego</i> -had to be added. Even the possibility of laying stress on the -temporal element broke down in forms like <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">scripsi</i>, <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">minui</i>, <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">sum</i>, -<i lang="la" xml:lang="la">audiam</i>, and innumerable others. It seems obvious that the -freedom of Latin in this respect must have been inferior to that of -English. Moreover, in English, the three elements, ‘I,’ ‘had,’ and -‘sung,’ can in certain cases be arranged in a different order, and -other words can be inserted between them in order to modify -and qualify the meaning of the sentence. Note also the conciseness -of such answers as “Who had sung?” “I had.” “What -had you done?” “Sung.” “I believe he has enjoyed himself.” -“I know he has.” And contrast the Latin “<span lang="la" xml:lang="la">Cantaveram et -saltaveram et luseram et riseram</span>” with the English “I had sung -and danced and played and laughed.” What would be the Latin -equivalent of “Tom never <em>did</em> and never <em>will</em> beat me”?</p> - -<p>In such cases, analysis means suppleness, and synthesis means -rigidity; in analytic languages you have the power of kaleidoscopically -arranging and rearranging the elements that in synthetic -forms like <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">cantaveram</i> are in rigid connexion and lead a Siamese-twin -sort of existence. The synthetic forms of Latin verbs remind -one of those languages all over the world (North America, South -America, Hottentot, etc.) in which such ideas as ‘father’ or -‘mother’ or ‘head’ or ‘eye’ cannot be expressed separately,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_335" id="Page_335">[335]</a></span> -but only in connexion with an indication of <em>whose</em> father, etc., -one is speaking about: in one language the verbal idea (in the -finite moods), in the other the nominal idea, is necessarily fused -with the personal idea.</p> - - -<h4>XVII.—§ 11. Verbal Concord.</h4> - -<p>This formal inseparability of subordinate elements is at the -root of those rules of concord which play such a large rôle in the -older languages of our Aryan family, but which tend to disappear -in the more recent stages. By concord we mean the fact that a -secondary word (adjective or verb) is made to agree with the -primary word (substantive or subject) to which it belongs. Verbal -concord, by which a verb is governed in number and person by -the subject, has disappeared from spoken Danish, where, for -instance, the present tense of the verb meaning ‘to travel’ is -uniformly <i lang="da" xml:lang="da">rejser</i> in all persons of both numbers; while the written -language till towards the end of the nineteenth century kept up -artificially the plural <i lang="da" xml:lang="da">rejse</i>, although it had been dead in the spoken -language for some three hundred years. The old flexion is an -article of luxury, as a modification of the idea belonging properly -to the subject is here transferred to the predicate, where it has -no business; for when we say ‘<span lang="da" xml:lang="da">mændene rejse</span>’ (<span lang="de" xml:lang="de">die männer reisen</span>), -we do not mean to imply that they undertake several journeys -(cf. Madvig Kl 28, <cite lang="da" xml:lang="da">Nord. tsk. f. filol.</cite>, n.r. 8. 134).</p> - -<p>By getting rid of this superfluity, Danish has got the start -of the more archaic of its Aryan sister-tongues. Even English, -which has in most respects gone farthest in simplifying its flexional -system, lags here behind Danish, in that in the present tense of -most verbs the third person singular deviates from the other -persons by ending in <i>-s</i>, and the verb <i>be</i> preserves some other -traces of the old concord system, not to speak of the form in <i>-st</i> -used with <i>thou</i> in the language of religion and poetry. Small -and unimportant as these survivals may seem, still they are in -some instances impediments to the free and easy expression of -thought. In Danish, for instance, there is not the slightest difficulty -in saying ‘<span lang="da" xml:lang="da">enten du eller jeg har uret</span>,’ as <i lang="da" xml:lang="da">har</i> is used both -in the first and second persons singular and plural. But when -an Englishman tries to render the same simple sentiment he is -baffled; ‘either you or I <i>are</i> wrong’ is felt to be incorrect, and -so is ‘either you or I <i>am</i> wrong’; he might say ‘either you are -wrong, or I,’ but then this manner of putting it, if grammatically -admissible (with or without the addition of <i>am</i>), is somewhat stiff -and awkward; and there is no perfectly natural way out of the -difficulty, for Dean Alford’s proposal to say ‘either you or I <i>is</i><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_336" id="Page_336">[336]</a></span> -wrong’ (<cite>The Queen’s Engl.</cite> 155) is not to be recommended. The -advantage of having verbal forms that are no respecters of persons -is seen directly in such perfectly natural expressions as ‘either -you or I must be wrong,’ or ‘either you or I may be wrong,’ -or ‘either you or I began it’—and indirectly from the more or -less artificial rules of Latin and Greek grammars on this point; -in the following passages the Gordian knot is cut in different ways:</p> - -<p>Shakespeare <cite>LLL</cite> <span class="smcap lowercase">V.</span> 2. 346 Nor God, nor I, <i>delights</i> in perjur’d -men | id. <cite>As</cite> <span class="smcap lowercase">I.</span> 3. 99 Thou and I <i>am</i> one | Tennyson <cite>Poet. W.</cite> 369 -For whatsoever knight against us came Or I or he <i>have</i> easily overthrown -| Galsworthy <cite>D</cite> 30 <i>Am</i> I and all women really what they -think us? | Shakespeare <cite>H4B</cite> <span class="smcap lowercase">IV.</span> 2. 121 Heauen, and not wee, -<i>haue</i> safely fought to day (Folio, where the Quarto has: God, -and not wee, <i>hath</i>....)</p> - -<p>The same difficulty often appears in relative clauses; Alford -(l.c. 152) calls attention to the fact of the Prayer Book reading -“Thou art the God that <i>doeth</i> wonders,” whereas the Bible version -runs “Thou art the God that <i>doest</i> wonders.” Compare also:</p> - -<p>Shakespeare <cite>As</cite> <span class="smcap lowercase">III.</span> 5. 55 ’Tis not her glasse, but you that -<i>flatters</i> her | id. <cite>Meas.</cite> <span class="smcap lowercase">II.</span> 2. 80 It is the law, not I, <i>condemne</i> your -brother | Carlyle <cite>Fr. Rev.</cite> 38, There is none but you and I that <i>has</i> -the people’s interest at heart (translated from: <span lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Il n’y a que vous -et moi qui <i>aimions</i> le peuple</span>).</p> - -<p>In all such cases the construction in Danish is as easy and -natural as it generally is in the English preterit: “It was not her -glass, but you that flattered her.” The disadvantage of having -verbal forms which enforce the indication of person and number -is perhaps seen most strikingly in a French sentence like this -from Romain Rolland’s <cite>Jean Christophe</cite> (7. 221): “<span lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Ce mot, naturellement, -ce n’est ni toi, ni moi, qui <i>pouvons</i> le dire</span>”—the verb agrees -with that which <i>cannot</i> be the subject (we)! For what is meant -is really: ‘<span lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">celui qui peut le dire, ce n’est ni moi ni toi</span>.’</p> - - - -<div class="chapter"> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_337" id="Page_337">[337]</a></span></p> - - - - - -<h3 class="nobreak"><a name="CHAPTER_XVIII" id="CHAPTER_XVIII">CHAPTER XVIII</a><br /> - -<span class="larger">PROGRESS</span></h3> -</div> - -<div class="blockquot chaptersummary"> - -<p>§ 1. Nominal Forms. § 2. Irregularities Original. § 3. Syntax. § 4. Objections. -§ 5. Word Order. § 6. Gender. § 7. Nominal Concord. -§ 8. The English Genitive. § 9. Bantu Concord. § 10. Word Order -Again. § 11. Compromises. § 12. Order Beneficial? § 13. Word -Order and Simplification. § 14. Summary.</p></div> - - -<h4>XVIII.—§ 1. Nominal Forms.</h4> - -<p>In the flexion of substantives and adjectives we see phenomena -corresponding to those we have just been considering in the verbs. -The ancient languages of our family have several forms where -modern languages content themselves with fewer; forms originally -kept distinct are in course of time confused, either through a -phonetic obliteration of differences in the endings or through -analogical extension of the functions of one form. The single -form <i>good</i> is now used where OE. used the forms <i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">god</i>, <i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">godne</i>, <i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">gode</i>, -<i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">godum</i>, <i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">godes</i>, <i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">godre</i>, <i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">godra</i>, <i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">goda</i>, <i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">godan</i>, <i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">godena</i>; Ital. <i lang="it" xml:lang="it">uomo</i> or -French <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">homme</i> is used for Lat. <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">homo</i>, <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">hominem</i>, <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">homini</i>, <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">homine</i>—nay, -if we take the spoken form into consideration, Fr. [ɔm] -corresponds not only to these Latin forms, but also to <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">homines</i>, -<i lang="la" xml:lang="la">hominibus</i>. Where the modern language has one or two cases, -in an earlier stage it had three or four, and still earlier seven or -eight. The difficulties inherent in the older system cannot, however, -be measured adequately by the number of forms each word is -susceptible of, but are multiplied by the numerous differences -in the formation of the same case in different classes of declension; -sometimes we even find anomalies which affect one word only.</p> - -<p>Those who would be inclined to maintain that new irregularities -may and do arise in modern languages which make up for whatever -earlier irregularities have been discarded in the course of -the historical development will do well to compile a systematic -list of <em>all</em> the flexional forms of two different stages of the same -languages, arranged exactly according to the same principles: -this is the only way in which it is possible really to balance losses -and profits in a language. This is what I have done in my -<cite>Progress in Language</cite> § 111 ff. (reprinted in ChE § 9 ff.), where -I have contrasted the case systems of Old and Modern English:<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_338" id="Page_338">[338]</a></span> -the result is that the former system takes 7 (+ 3) pages, and the -latter only 2 pages. Those pages, with their abbreviations and -tabulations, do not, perhaps, offer very entertaining reading, but -I think they are more illustrative of the real tendencies of language -than either isolated examples or abstract reasonings, and they -cannot fail to convince any impartial reader of the enormous gain -achieved through the changes of the intervening nine hundred -years in the general structure of the English language.</p> - -<p>For our general purposes it will be worth our while here to -quote what Friedrich Müller (Gr i. 2. 7) says about a totally -different language: “Even if the Hottentot distinguishes ‘he,’ -‘she’ and ‘it,’ and strictly separates the singular from the plural -number, yet by his expressing ‘he’ and ‘she’ by one sound in -the third person, and by another in the second, he manifests that -he has no perception at all of our two grammatical categories of -gender and number, and consequently those elements of his language -that run parallel to our signs of gender and number must -be of an entirely different nature.” Fr. Müller should not -perhaps throw too many stones at the poor Hottentots, for his -own native tongue is no better than a glass house, and we might -with equal justice say, for instance: “As the Germans express -the plural number in different manners in words like <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">gott—götter</i>, -<i lang="de" xml:lang="de">hand—hände</i>, <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">vater—väter</i>, <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">frau—frauen</i>, etc., they must be entirely -lacking in the sense of the category of number.” Or let -us take such a language as Latin; there is nothing to show that -<i lang="la" xml:lang="la">dominus</i> bears the same relation to <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">domini</i> as <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">verbum</i> to <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">verba</i>, -<i lang="la" xml:lang="la">urbs</i> to <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">urbes</i>, <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">mensis</i> to <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">menses</i>, <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">cornu</i> to <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">cornua</i>, <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">fructus</i> to <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">fructūs</i>, -etc.; even in the same word the idea of plurality is not expressed -by the same method for all the cases, as is shown by a comparison -of <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">dominus—domini</i>, <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">dominum—dominos</i>, <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">domino—dominis</i>, -<i lang="la" xml:lang="la">domini—dominorum</i>. Fr. Müller is no doubt wrong in saying -that such anomalies preclude the speakers of the language from -conceiving the notion of plurality; but, on the other hand, it -seems evident that a language in which a difference so simple -even to the understanding of very young children as that between -one and more than one can only be expressed by a complicated -apparatus must rank lower than another language in which this -difference has a single expression for all cases in which it occurs. -In this respect, too, Modern English stands higher than the oldest -English, Latin or Hottentot.</p> - - -<h4>XVIII.—§ 2. Irregularities Original.</h4> - -<p>It was the belief of the older school of comparativists that -each case had originally one single ending, which was added to<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_339" id="Page_339">[339]</a></span> -all nouns indifferently (e.g. <i>-as</i> for the genitive sg.), and that the -irregularities found in the existing oldest languages were of later -growth; the actually existing forms were then derived from the -supposed unity form by all kinds of phonetic tricks and dodges. -Now people have begun to see that the primeval language cannot -have been quite uniform and regular (see, for instance, Walde -in Streitberg’s <cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Gesch.</cite>, 2. 194 ff.). If we look at facts, and not -at imagined or reconstructed forms, we are forced to acknowledge -that in the oldest stages of our family of languages not only did -the endings present the spectacle of a motley variety, but the -kernel of the word was also often subject to violent changes in -different cases, as when it had in different forms different accentuation -and (or) different apophony, or as when in some of the most -frequently occurring words some cases were formed from one -‘stem’ and others from another, for instance, the nominative -from an <i>r</i> stem and the oblique cases from an <i>n</i> stem. In the -common word for ‘water’ Greek has preserved both stems, nom. -<i>hudōr</i>, gen. <i>hudatos</i>, where <i>a</i> stands for original [ən]. Whatever -the origin of this change of stems, it is a phenomenon belonging -to the earlier stages of our languages, in which we also sometimes -find an alteration between the <i>r</i> stem in the nominative and a -combination of the <i>n</i> and the <i>r</i> stems in the other cases, as in -Lat. <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">jecur</i> ‘liver,’ <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">jecinoris</i>; <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">iter</i> ‘voyage,’ <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">itineris</i>, which is -supposed to have supplanted <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">itinis</i>, formed like <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">feminis</i> from <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">femur</i>. -In the later stages we always find a simplification, one single form -running through all cases; this is either the nominative stem, as -in E. <i>water</i>, G. <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">wasser</i> (corresponding to Gr. <i>hudōr</i>), or the oblique -case-stem, as in the Scandinavian forms, Old Norse <i lang="non" xml:lang="non">vatn</i>, Swed. -<i lang="sv" xml:lang="sv">vatten</i>, Dan. <i lang="da" xml:lang="da">vand</i> (corresponding to Gr. <i>hudat-</i>), or finally a contaminated -form, as in the name of the Swedish lake <i lang="sv" xml:lang="sv">Vättern</i> -(Noreen’s explanation), or in Old Norse and Dan. <i lang="da" xml:lang="da">skarn</i> ‘dirt,’ -which has its <i>r</i> from a form like the Gr. <i>skōr</i>, and its <i>n</i> from a -form like the Gr. genitive <i>skatos</i> (older [skəntos]). The simplification -is carried furthest in English, where the identical form <i>water</i> is -not only used unchanged where in the older languages different -case forms would have been used (‘the water is cold,’ ‘the surface -of the water,’ ‘he fell into the water,’ ‘he swims in the water’), -but also serves as a verb (‘did you water the flowers?’), and -as an adjunct as a quasi-adjective (‘a water melon,’ ‘water -plants’).</p> - -<p>In most cases irregularities have been done away with in the -way here indicated, one of the forms (or stems) being generalized; -but in other cases it may have happened, as Kretschmer supposes -(in Gercke and Norden, <cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Einleit. in die Altertumswiss.</cite>, I, 501) that -irregular flexion caused a word to go out of use entirely; thus<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_340" id="Page_340">[340]</a></span> -in Modern Greek <i>hêpar</i> was supplanted by <i>sukōti</i>,<a name="FNanchor_84_84" id="FNanchor_84_84"></a><a href="#Footnote_84_84" class="fnanchor">[84]</a> <i>phréar</i> by <i>pēgadi</i>, -<i>húdōr</i> by <i>neró</i>, <i>oûs</i> by <i>aphtí</i> (= <i>ōtíon</i>), <i>kúōn</i> by <i>skullí</i>; this possibly -also accounts for <i>commando</i> taking the place of Lat. <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">jubeo</i>.</p> - -<p>Some scholars maintain that the medieval languages were -more regular than their modern representatives; but if we look -more closely into what they mean, we shall see that they are not -speaking of any regularity in the sense in which the word has here -been used—the only regularity which is of importance to the -speakers of the language—but of the regular correspondence of -a language with some earlier language from which it is derived. -This is particularly the case with E. Littré, who, in his essays on -<cite lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">L’Histoire de la Langue Française</cite>, was full of enthusiasm for Old -French, but chiefly for the fidelity with which it had preserved -some features of Latin. There was thus the old distinction of -two cases: nom. sg. <i lang="fro" xml:lang="fro">murs</i>, acc. sg. <i lang="fro" xml:lang="fro">mur</i>, and in the plural inversely -nom. <i lang="fro" xml:lang="fro">mur</i> and acc. <i lang="fro" xml:lang="fro">murs</i>, with its exact correspondence with Latin -<i lang="la" xml:lang="la">murus</i>, <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">murum</i>, pl. <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">muri</i>, <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">muros</i>. When this ‘règle de <i>l</i>’s’ was -discovered, and the use or omission of <i>s</i>, which had hitherto been -looked upon as completely arbitrary in Old French, was thus -accounted for, scholars were apt to consider this as an admirable -trait in the old language which had been lost in modern French, -and the same view obtained with regard to the case distinction -found in other words, such as OFr. nom. <i lang="fro" xml:lang="fro">maire</i>, acc. <i lang="fro" xml:lang="fro">majeur</i>, or -nom. <i lang="fro" xml:lang="fro">emperere</i>, acc. <i lang="fro" xml:lang="fro">emperëur</i>, corresponding to the Latin forms -with changing stress, <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">májor</i>, <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">majórem</i>, <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">imperátor</i>, <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">imperatórem</i>, -etc. But, however interesting such things may be to the historical -linguist, there is no denying that to the users of French the modern -simpler flexion is a gain as compared with this more complex -system. “<span lang="de" xml:lang="de">Des sprachhistorikers freud ist des sprachbrauchers -leid</span>,” as Schuchardt somewhere shrewdly remarks.</p> - - -<h4>XVIII.—§ 3. Syntax.</h4> - -<p>There were also in the old languages many irregularities in -the syntactic use of the cases, as when some verbs governed the -genitive and others the dative, etc. Even if it may be possible -in many instances to account historically for these uses, to the -speakers of the languages they must have appeared to be mere -caprices which had to be learned separately for each verb, and it -is therefore a great advantage when they have been gradually -done away with, as has been the case, to a great extent, even in -a language like German, which has retained many old case forms. -Thus verbs like <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">entbehren</i>, <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">vergessen</i>, <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">bedürfen</i>, <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">wahrnehmen</i>, which -formerly took the genitive, are now used more and more with the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_341" id="Page_341">[341]</a></span> -simple accusative—a simplification which, among other things, -makes the construction of sentences in the passive voice easier -and more regular.</p> - -<p>The advantage of discarding the old case distinctions is seen -in the ease with which English and French speakers can say, -e.g., ‘with or without my hat,’ or ‘in and round the church,’ -while the correct German is ‘<span lang="de" xml:lang="de">mit meinem hut oder ohne denselben</span>’ -and ‘<span lang="de" xml:lang="de">in der kirche und um dieselbe</span>’; Wackernagel writes: -“<span lang="de" xml:lang="de">Was in ihm und um ihn und über ihm ist</span>.” When the prepositions -are followed by a single substantive without case distinction, -German, of course, has the same simple construction as English, -e.g. <span lang="de" xml:lang="de">‘mit oder ohne geld</span>,’ and sometimes even good writers will -let themselves go and write ‘<span lang="de" xml:lang="de">um und neben dem hochaltare</span>’ -(Goethe), or ‘<span lang="de" xml:lang="de">Ihre tochter wird meine frau mit oder gegen ihren -willen</span>’ (these examples from Curme, <cite>German Grammar</cite> 191). -Cf. also: ‘<span lang="de" xml:lang="de">Ich kann deinem bruder nicht helfen und ihn unterstützen</span>.’</p> - -<p>Many extremely convenient idioms unknown in the older -synthetic languages have been rendered possible in English through -the doing away with the old case distinctions, such as: Genius, -demanding bread, is given a stone after its possessor’s death (Shaw) -(cf. my ChE § 79) | he was offered, and declined, the office of -poet-laureate (Gosse) | the lad was spoken highly of | I love, and -am loved by, my wife | these laws my readers, whom I consider -as my subjects, are bound to believe in and to obey (Fielding) | -he was heathenishly inclined to believe in, or to worship, the -goddess Nemesis (id.) | he rather rejoiced in, than regretted, his -bruise (id.) | many a dun had she talked to, and turned away -from her father’s door (Thackeray) | their earthly abode, which -has seen, and seemed almost to sympathize in, all their honour -(Ruskin).</p> - - -<h4>XVIII.—§ 4. Objections.</h4> - -<p>Against my view of the superiority of languages with few -case distinctions, Arwid Johannson, in a very able article (in -IF I, see especially p. 247 f.), has adduced a certain number of -ambiguous sentences from German:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p><span lang="de" xml:lang="de">Soweit die deutsche zunge klingt und <i>gott</i> im himmel -lieder singt</span> (is <i>gott</i> nominative or dative?) | <span lang="de" xml:lang="de">Seinem landsmann, -dem er in seiner ganzen bildung ebensoviel verdankte, wie -<i>Goethe</i></span> (nominative or dative?) | <span lang="de" xml:lang="de">Doch würde die gesellschaft -<i>der Indierin</i></span> (genitive or dative?) <span lang="de" xml:lang="de">lästig gewesen sein</span> | <span lang="de" xml:lang="de">Darin -hat Caballero wohl nur einen konkurrenten, die Eliot, -<i>welche</i> freilich <i>die spanische dichterin</i> nicht ganz erreicht</span> | <span lang="de" xml:lang="de">Nur</span><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_342" id="Page_342">[342]</a></span> -<span lang="de" xml:lang="de">Diopeithes feindet insgeheim dich an und <i>die schwester</i> des -Kimon und <i>dein weib</i> Telesippa</span>. (In the last two sentences -what is the subject, and what the object?)</p></div> - -<p>According to Johannson, these passages show the disadvantages -of doing away with formal distinctions, for the sentences would -have been clear if each separate case had had its distinctive sign; -“the greater the wealth of forms, the more intelligible the -speech.” And they show, he says, that such ambiguities will -occur, even where the strictest rules of word order are observed. -I shall not urge that this is not exactly the case in the last sentence -if <i>die schwester</i> and <i>dein weib</i> are to be taken as accusatives, -for then <i>an</i> should have been placed at the very end of the sentence; -nor that, in the last sentence but one, the mention of -George Eliot as the ‘konkurrent’ of Fernan Caballero seems to -show a partiality to the Spanish authoress on the part of the -writer of the sentence, so that the reader is prepared to take -<i>welche</i> as the nominative case; <i>freilich</i> would seem to point in the -same direction. But these, of course, are only trifling objections; -the essential point is that we must grant the truth of Johannson’s -contention that we have here a flaw in the German language; -the defects of its grammatical system may and do cause a certain -number of ambiguities. Neither is it difficult to find the reasons -of these defects by considering the structure of the language in -its entirety, and by translating the sentences in question into a -few other languages and comparing the results.</p> - -<p>First, with regard to the formal distinctions between cases, -the really weak point cannot be the fewness of these endings, -for in that case we should expect the same sort of ambiguities -to be very common in English and Danish, where the formal -case distinctions are considerably fewer than in German; but as -a matter of fact such ambiguities are more frequent in German -than in the other two languages. And, however paradoxical it -may seem at first sight, one of the causes of this is the greater -wealth of grammatical forms in German. Let us substitute -other words for the ambiguous ones, and we shall see that the -amphibology will nearly always disappear, because most other -words will have different forms in the two cases, e.g.:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p><span lang="de" xml:lang="de">Soweit die deutsche zunge klingt und <i>dem allmächtigen</i></span> -(or, <i>der allmächtige</i>) <span lang="de" xml:lang="de">lieder singt</span> | <span lang="de" xml:lang="de">Seinem landsmann, dem er -ebensoviel verdankte, wie <i>dem grossen dichter</i></span> (or, <i>der grosse -dichter</i>) | <span lang="de" xml:lang="de">Doch würde die gesellschaft <i>des Indiers</i></span> (or, <i>dem -Indier</i>) <span lang="de" xml:lang="de">lästig gewesen sein</span> | <span lang="de" xml:lang="de">Darin hat Calderon wohl nur -einen konkurrenten, Shakespeare, <i>welcher</i> freilich <i>den spanischen<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_343" id="Page_343">[343]</a></span> -dichter</i> nicht erreicht</span> (or, <i>den</i> ... <i>der spanische dichter</i> -...) | <span lang="de" xml:lang="de">Nur Diopeithes feindet dich insgeheim an, und <i>der -bruder</i> des Kimon und <i>sein freund</i> T.</span> (or, <i>den bruder</i> ... -<i>seinen freund</i>).</p></div> - -<p>It is this very fact that countless sentences of this sort are -perfectly clear which leads to the employment of similar constructions -even where the resulting sentence is by no means clear; -but if all, or most, words were identical in the nominative and -the dative, like <i>gott</i>, or in the dative and genitive, like <i>der Indierin</i>, -constructions like those used would be impossible to imagine in -a language meant to be an intelligible vehicle of thought. And -so the ultimate cause of the ambiguities is the inconsistency in the -formation of the several cases. But this inconsistency is found -in all the old languages of the Aryan family: cases which in one -gender or with one class of stems are kept perfectly distinct, -are in others identical. I take some examples from Latin, because -this is perhaps the best known language of this type, but Gothic -or Old Slavonic would show inconsistencies of the same kind. -<i lang="la" xml:lang="la">Domini</i> is genitive singular and nominative plural (corresponding -to, e.g., <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">verbi</i> and <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">verba</i>); <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">verba</i> is nominative and accusative pl. -(corresponding to <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">domini</i> and <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">dominos</i>); <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">domino</i> is dative and -ablative; <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">dominæ</i> gen. and dative singular and nominative plural; -<i lang="la" xml:lang="la">te</i> is accusative and ablative; <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">qui</i> is singular and plural; <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">quæ</i> -singular fem. and plural fem. and neuter, etc. Hence, while <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">patres -filios amant</i> or <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">patres filii amant</i> are perfectly clear, <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">patres consules -amant</i> allows of two interpretations; and in how many ways -cannot such a proposition as <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">Horatius et Virgilius poetæ Varii -amici erant</i> be construed? <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">Menenii patris munus</i> may mean -‘the gift of father Menenius,’ or ‘the gift of Menenius’s father’; -<i lang="la" xml:lang="la">expers illius periculi</i> either ‘free from that danger’ or ‘free from -(sharing) that person’s danger’; in an infinitive construction -with two accusatives, the only way to know which is the subject -and which the object is to consider the context, and that is not -always decisive, as in the oracular response given to the Æacide -Pyrrhus, as quoted by Cicero from Ennius: “<span lang="la" xml:lang="la">Aio <i>te</i>, Æacida, -<i>Romanos</i> vincere posse</span>.” Such drawbacks seem to be inseparable -from the structure of the highly flexional Aryan languages; although -they are not logical consequences of a wealth of forms, yet historically -they cling to those languages which have the greatest -number of grammatical endings. And as we are here concerned -not with the question how to construct an artificial language -(and even there I should not advise the adoption of many case -distinctions), but with the valuation of natural languages as -actually existing in their earlier and modern stages, we cannot<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_344" id="Page_344">[344]</a></span> -accept Johannson’s verdict: “The greater the wealth of forms, -the more intelligible the speech.”</p> - - -<h4>XVIII.—§ 5. Word Order.</h4> - -<p>If the German sentences quoted above are ambiguous, it is -not only on account of the want of clearness in the forms employed, -but also on account of the German rules of word order. One rule -places the verb last in subordinate sentences, and in two of the -sentences there would be no ambiguity in principal sentences: -<span lang="de" xml:lang="de">Die deutsche zunge klingt und <i>singt gott</i> im himmel lieder</span>; or, -<span lang="de" xml:lang="de">Die deutsche zunge klingt, und <i>gott im himmel singt</i> lieder</span> | <span lang="de" xml:lang="de"><i>Sie -erreicht</i> freilich nicht die spanische dichterin</span>; or, <span lang="de" xml:lang="de">Die spanische -dichterin <i>erreicht sie</i> freilich nicht</span>. In one of the remaining sentences -the ambiguity is caused by the rule that the verb must be -placed immediately after an introductory subjunct: if we omit -<i lang="de" xml:lang="de">doch</i> the sentence becomes clear: <span lang="de" xml:lang="de">Die <i>gesellschaft der Indierin -würde</i> lästig gewesen sein</span>, or, <span lang="de" xml:lang="de"><i>Die gesellschaft würde der Indierin</i> -lästig gewesen sein</span>. Here, again we see the ill consequences of -inconsistency of linguistic structure; some of the rules for word -position serve to show grammatical relations, but in certain cases -they have to give way to other rules, which counteract this useful -purpose. If you change the order of words in a German sentence, -you will often find that the meaning is not changed, but the result -will be an unidiomatic construction (bad grammar); while in -English a transposition will often result in perfectly good grammar, -only the meaning will be an entirely different one from the original -sentence. This does not amount to saying that the German rules -of position are useless and the English ones all useful, but only -to saying that in English word order is utilized to express difference -of meaning to a far greater extent than in German.</p> - -<p>One critic cites against me “one example, which figures in -almost every Rhetoric as a violation of clearness: <i>And thus the -son the fervid sire address’d</i>,” and he adds: “The use of a separate -form for nominative and accusative would clear up the ambiguity -immediately.” The retort is obvious: no doubt it would, but -so would the use of a natural word order. Word order is just as -much a part of English grammar as case-endings are in other -languages; a violation of the rules of word order may cause the -same want of intelligibility as the use of <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">dominum</i> instead of -<i lang="la" xml:lang="la">dominus</i> would in Latin. And if the example is found in almost -every English Rhetoric, I am glad to say that equally ambiguous -sentences are very rare indeed in other English books. Even in -poetry, where there is such a thing as poetic licence, and where -the exigencies of rhythm and rime, as well as the fondness for<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_345" id="Page_345">[345]</a></span> -archaic and out-of-the-way expressions, will often induce deviations -from the word order of prose, real ambiguity will very seldom -arise on that account. It is true that it has been disputed which -is the subject in Gray’s line:</p> - -<div class="poetry-container"><div class="poetry"><div class="stanza"> - <div class="verse">And all the air a solemn stillness holds,</div> -</div></div></div> - -<p>but then it does not matter much, for the ultimate understanding -of the line must be exactly the same whether the air holds stillness -or stillness holds the air. In ordinary language we may find -similar collocations, but it is worth saying with some emphasis -that there can never be any doubt as to which is the subject and -which the object. The ordinary word order is, Subject-Verb-Object, -and where there is a deviation there must always be some -special reason for it. This may be the wish, especially for the -sake of some contrast, to throw into relief some member of the -sentence. If this is the subject, the purpose is achieved by -stressing it, but the word order is not affected. But if it is the -object, this may be placed in the very beginning of the sentence, -but in that case English does not, like German and Danish, require -inversion of the verb, and the order consequently is, Object-Subject-Verb, -which is perfectly clear and unambiguous. See, for -instance, Dickens’s sentence: “<i>Talent, Mr. Micawber</i> has; <i>capital, -Mr. Micawber</i> has not,” and the following passage from a recent -novel: “Even Royalty had not quite their glow and glitter; -<i>Royalty you</i> might see any day, driving, bowing, smiling. The -Queen had a smile for every one; but <i>the Duchess no one, not -even Lizzie</i>, ever saw.” Thus, also, in Shakespeare’s:</p> - -<div class="poetry-container"><div class="poetry"><div class="stanza"> - <div class="verse"><i>Things base and vilde</i>, holding no quantity,</div> - <div class="verse"><i>Loue</i> can transpose to forme and dignity (<cite>Mids.</cite> <span class="smcap lowercase">I.</span> 1. 233),</div> -</div></div></div> - -<p>and in Longfellow’s translation from Logau:</p> - -<div class="poetry-container"><div class="poetry"><div class="stanza"> - <div class="verse">A blind man is a poor man, and blind a poor man is;</div> - <div class="verse">For the former seeth no man, and <i>the latter no man</i> sees.</div> -</div></div></div> - -<p>The reason for deviating from the order, Subject-Verb-Object, -may again be purely grammatical: a relative or an interrogative -pronoun must be placed first; but here, too, English grammar -precludes ambiguity, as witness the following sentences: This -picture, which surpasses Mona Lisa | This picture, which Mona -Lisa surpasses | What picture surpasses Mona Lisa? | What -picture does not Mona Lisa surpass? In German (<span lang="de" xml:lang="de">dieses bild, -welches die M. L. übertrifft</span>, etc.) all four sentences would be -ambiguous, in Danish the two last would be indistinguishable; -but English shows that a small number of case forms is not -incompatible with perfect clearness and perspicuity. If the famous<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_346" id="Page_346">[346]</a></span> -oracular answer (<cite>Henry VI, 2nd Part</cite>, <span class="smcap lowercase">I.</span> 4. 33), “The Duke yet -liues, that Henry shall depose,” is ambiguous, it is only because -it is in verse, where you expect inversions: in ordinary prose it -could be understood only in one way, as the word order would -be reversed if <i>Henry</i> was meant as the object.</p> - - -<h4>XVIII.—§ 6. Gender.</h4> - -<p>Besides case distinctions the older Aryan languages have a -rather complicated system of gender distinctions, which in many -instances agrees with, but in many others is totally independent -of, and even may be completely at war with, the natural distinction -between male beings, female beings and things without sex. -This grammatical gender is sometimes looked upon as something -valuable for a language to possess; thus Schroeder (<cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Die formale -Unterscheidung</cite> 87) says: “The formal distinction of genders -is decidedly an enormous advantage which the Aryan, Semitic -and Egyptian languages have before all other languages.” Aasen -(<cite lang="no" xml:lang="no">Norsk Grammatik</cite> 123) finds that the preservation of the old -genders gives vividness and variety to a language; he therefore, -in constructing his artificial Norwegian ‘landsmaal,’ based it -on those dialects which made a formal distinction between the -masculine and feminine article. But other scholars have recognized -the disadvantages accruing from such distinctions; thus -Tegnér (SM 50) regrets the fact that in Swedish it is impossible -to give such a form to the sentence ‘<span lang="sv" xml:lang="sv">sin make må man ej svika</span>’ -as to make it clear that the admonition is applicable to both -husband and wife, because <i lang="sv" xml:lang="sv">make</i>, ‘mate,’ is masculine, and <i lang="sv" xml:lang="sv">maka</i> -feminine. In Danish, where <i lang="da" xml:lang="da">mage</i> is common to both sexes, no -such difficulty arises. Gabelentz (Spr 234) says: “<span lang="de" xml:lang="de">Das grammatische -geschlecht bringt es weiter mit sich dass wir deutschen nie -eine frauensperson als einen menschen und nicht leicht einen -mann als eine person bezeichnen</span>.”</p> - -<p>As a matter of fact, German gender is responsible for many -difficulties, not only when it is in conflict with natural sex, as when -one may hesitate whether to use the pronoun <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">es</i> or <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">sie</i> in reference -to a person just mentioned as <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">das mädchen</i> or <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">das weib</i>, or <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">er</i> or -<i lang="de" xml:lang="de">sie</i> in reference to <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">die schildwache</i>, but also when sexless things -are concerned, and <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">er</i> might be taken as either referring to the -man or to <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">der stuhl</i> or to <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">der wald</i> just mentioned, etc. In France, -grammarians have disputed without end as to the propriety or -not of referring to the (feminine) word <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">personnes</i> by means of the -pronoun <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">ils</i> (see Nyrop, <cite lang="da" xml:lang="da">Kongruens</cite> 24, and Gr. iii. § 712): “<span lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Les -personnes que vous attendiez sont <i>tous logés</i> ici</span>.” As a negative -pronoun <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">personne</i> is now frankly masculine: ‘<span lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">personne n’est <i>malheureux</i></span>.’<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_347" id="Page_347">[347]</a></span> -With <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">gens</i> the old feminine gender is still kept up when -an adjective precedes, as in <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">les bonnes gens</i>, thus also <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">toutes les -bonnes gens</i>, but when the adjective has no separate feminine -form, schoolmasters prefer to say <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">tous les honnêtes gens</i>, and the -masculine generally prevails when the adjective is at some distance -from <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">gens</i>, as in the old school-example, <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Instruits par l’expérience, -toutes les vieilles gens sont soupçonneux</i>. There is a good deal of -artificiality in the strict rules of grammarians on this point, and -it is therefore good that the <span lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Arrêté ministériel</span> of 1901 tolerates -greater liberty; but conflicts are unavoidable, and will rise quite -naturally, in any language that has not arrived at the perfect -stage of complete genderlessness (which, of course, is not identical -with inability to express sex-differences).</p> - -<p>Most English pronouns make no distinction of sex: <i>I</i>, <i>you</i>, -<i>we</i>, <i>they</i>, <i>who</i>, <i>each</i>, <i>somebody</i>, etc. Yet, when we hear that -Finnic and Magyar, and indeed the vast majority of languages -outside the Aryan and Semitic world, have no separate forms -for <i>he</i> and <i>she</i>, our first thought is one of astonishment; we fail -to see how it is possible to do without this distinction. But if -we look more closely we shall see that it is at times an inconvenience -to have to specify the sex of the person spoken about. Coleridge -(<cite lang="la" xml:lang="la">Anima Poetæ</cite> 190) regretted the lack of a pronoun to refer to -the word <i>person</i>, as it necessitated some stiff and strange construction -like ‘not letting the person be aware wherein offence had -been given,’ instead of ‘wherein he or she has offended.’ It -has been said that if a genderless pronoun could be substituted -for <i>he</i> in such a proposition as this: ‘It would be interesting if -each of the leading poets would tell us what he considers his best -work,’ ladies would be spared the disparaging implication that -the leading poets were all men. Similarly there is something -incongruous in the following sentence found in a German review -of a book: “<span lang="de" xml:lang="de">Was Maria und Fritz so zueinander zog, war, dass -<i>jeder</i> von ihnen <i>am anderen</i> sah, wie <i>er</i> unglücklich war.</span>” Anyone -who has written much in Ido will have often felt how convenient -it is to have the common-sex pronouns <i lang="io" xml:lang="io">lu</i> (he or she), <i lang="io" xml:lang="io">singlu</i>, <i lang="io" xml:lang="io">altru</i>, -etc. It is interesting to see the different ways out of the difficulty -resorted to in actual language. First the cumbrous use of <i>he -or she</i>, as in Fielding <cite>TJ</cite> 1. 174, the reader’s heart (if he or she -have any) | Miss Muloch <cite>H.</cite> 2. 128, each one made his or her -comment.<a name="FNanchor_85_85" id="FNanchor_85_85"></a><a href="#Footnote_85_85" class="fnanchor">[85]</a> Secondly, the use of <i>he</i> alone: If anybody behaves -in such and such a manner, he will be punished (cf. the wholly<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_348" id="Page_348">[348]</a></span> -unobjectionable, but not always applicable, formula: Whoever -behaves in such and such a manner will be punished). This use -of <i>he</i> has been legalized by the Act 13 and 14 Vict., cap. 21. 4: -“That in all acts words importing the masculine gender shall be -deemed and taken to include females.” Third, the sexless but plural -form <i>they</i> may be used. If you try to put the phrase, ‘Does -anybody prevent you?’ in another way, beginning with ‘Nobody -prevents you,’ and then adding the interrogatory formula, you -will perceive that ‘does he’ is too definite, and ‘does he or she’ -too clumsy; and you will therefore naturally say (as Thackeray -does, <cite>P</cite> 2. 260), “Nobody prevents you, do they?” In the same -manner Shakespeare writes (<cite>Lucr.</cite> 125): “Everybody to rest -themselves betake.” The substitution of the plural for the -singular is not wholly illogical; for <i>everybody</i> is much the same -thing as ‘all men,’ and <i>nobody</i> is the negation of ‘all men’; but the -phenomenon is extended to cases where this explanation will not -hold good, as in G. Eliot, <cite>M.</cite> 2. 304, I shouldn’t like to punish any -one, even if <i>they’d</i> done me wrong. (For many examples from -good writers see my MEG. ii. 5, 56.)</p> - -<p>The English interrogative <i>who</i> is not, like the <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">quis</i> or <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">quæ</i> of -the Romans, limited to one sex and one number, so that our -question ‘Who did it?’ to be rendered exactly in Latin, would -require a combination of the four: <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">Quis hoc fecit?</i> <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">Quæ hoc -fecit?</i> <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">Qui hoc fecerunt?</i> <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">Quæ hoc fecerunt?</i> or rather, the -abstract nature of <i>who</i> (and of <i>did</i>) makes it possible to express -such a question much more indefinitely in English than in any -highly flexional language; and indefiniteness in many cases means -greater precision, or a closer correspondence between thought and -expression.</p> - - -<h4>XVIII.—§ 7. Nominal Concord.</h4> - -<p>We have seen in the case of the verbs how widely diffused in -all the old Aryan languages is the phenomenon of Concord. It -is the same with the nouns. Here, as there, it consists in secondary -words (here chiefly adjectives) being made to agree with principal -words, but while with the verbs the agreement was in number and -person, here it is in number, case and gender. This is well known -in Greek and Latin; as examples from Gothic may here be given -Luk. 1. 72, <i>gamunan triggwos weihaizos seinaizos</i>, ‘to remember<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_349" id="Page_349">[349]</a></span> -His holy covenant,’ and 1. 75, <i>allans dagans unsarans</i>, ‘all our -days.’ The English translation shows how English has discarded -this trait, for there is nothing in the forms of (<i>his</i>), <i>holy</i>, <i>all</i> and -<i>our</i>, as in the Gothic forms, to indicate what substantive they -belong to.</p> - -<p>Wherever the same adjectival idea is to be joined to two -substantives, the concordless junction is an obvious advantage, -as seen from a comparison of the English ‘my wife and children’ -with the French <span lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">‘ma femme et mes enfants</span>,’ or of ‘the <i>local</i> press -and committees’ with ‘<span lang="fr" xml:lang="fr"><i>la</i> presse <i>locale</i> et <i>les</i> comités <i>locaux</i></span>.’ -Try to translate exactly into French or Latin such a sentence as -this: “What are the present state and wants of mankind?” -(Ruskin). Cf. also the expression ‘a verdict of wilful murder -against <i>some</i> person or persons <i>unknown</i>,’ where <i>some</i> and <i>unknown</i> -belong to the singular as well as to the plural forms; Fielding -writes (<cite>TJ</cite> 3. 65): “<i>Some particular</i> chapter, or perhaps chapters, -<i>may be obnoxious</i>.” Where an English editor of a text will write: -“Some (indifferently singular and plural) word or words wanting -here,” a Dane will write: “<span lang="da" xml:lang="da">Et</span> (sg.) <span lang="da" xml:lang="da">eller flere</span> (pl.) <span lang="da" xml:lang="da">ord</span> (indifferent) -<span lang="da" xml:lang="da">mangler her</span>.” These last examples may be taken as proof that -it might even in some cases be advantageous to have forms in -the substantives that did not show number; still, it must be -recognized that the distinction between one and more than one -rightly belongs to substantival notions, but logically it has as -little to do with adjectival as with verbal notions (cf. above, Ch. -XVII § 11). In ‘black spots’ it is the spots, but not the qualities -of black, that we count. And in ‘two black spots’ it is of course -quite superfluous to add a dual or plural ending (as in Latin <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">duo</i>, -<i lang="la" xml:lang="la">duæ</i>) in order to indicate once more what the word <i>two</i> denotes -sufficiently, namely, that we have not to do with a singular. -Compare, finally, E. <i>to the father and mother</i>, Fr. <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">au père et à la -mère</i>, G. <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">zu dem vater und der mutter</i> (<i lang="de" xml:lang="de">zum vater und zur mutter</i>).</p> - -<p>If it is admitted that it is an inconvenience whenever you -want to use an adjective to have to put it in the form corresponding -in case, number and gender to its substantive, it may be thought -a redeeming feature of the language which makes this demand -that, on the other hand, it allows you to place the adjective at some -distance from the substantive, and yet the hearer or reader will -at once connect the two together. But here, as elsewhere in -‘energetics,’ the question is whether the advantage counter-balances -the disadvantage; in other words, whether the fact that -you are free to place your adjective where you will is worth the -price you pay for it in being always saddled with the heavy apparatus -of adjectival flexions. Why should you want to remove the -adjective from the substantive, which naturally must be in your<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_350" id="Page_350">[350]</a></span> -thought when you are thinking of the adjective? There is one -natural employment of the adjective in which it has very often -to stand at some distance from the substantive, namely, when it -is predicative; but then the example of German shows the needlessness -of concord in that case, for while the adjunct adjective is -inflected (<span lang="de" xml:lang="de">ein <i>guter</i> mensch, eine <i>gute</i> frau, ein <i>gutes</i> buch, <i>gute</i> -bücher</span>) the predicative is invariable like the adverb (<span lang="de" xml:lang="de">der mensch -ist <i>gut</i>, die frau ist <i>gut</i>, das buch ist <i>gut</i>, die bücher sind <i>gut</i></span>). It -is chiefly in poetry that a Latin adjective is placed far from its -substantive, as in Vergil: “<span lang="la" xml:lang="la">Et bene apud memores veteris stat -gratia facti</span>” (<cite>Æn.</cite> IV. 539), where the form shows that <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">veteris</i> -is to be taken with <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">facti</i> (but then, where does <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">bene</i> belong? it -might be taken with <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">memores</i>, <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">stat</i> or <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">facti</i>). In Horace’s well-known -aphorism: “<span lang="la" xml:lang="la">Æquam memento rebus in arduis servare -mentem</span>,” the flexional form of <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">æquam</i> allows him to place it first, -far from <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">mentem</i>, and thus facilitates for him the task of building -up a perfect metrical line; but for the reader it would certainly -be preferable to have had <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">æquam mentem</i> together at once, instead -of having to hold his attention in suspense for five words, till -finally he comes upon a word with which to connect the adjective. -There is therefore no economizing of the energy of reader or hearer. -Extreme examples may be found in Icelandic skaldic poetry, in -which the poets, to fulfil the requirements of a highly complicated -metrical system, entailing initial and medial rimes, very often -place the words in what logically must be considered the worst -disorder, thereby making their poem as difficult to understand -as an intricate chess-problem is to solve—and certainly coming -short of the highest poetical form.</p> - - -<h4>XVIII.—§ 8. The English Genitive.</h4> - -<p>If we compare a group of Latin words, such as <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">opera virorum -omnium bonorum veterum</i>, with a corresponding group in a few other -languages of a less flexional type: OE. <i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">ealra godra ealdra manna -weorc</i>; Danish <i lang="da" xml:lang="da">alle gode gamle mænds værker</i>; Modern English -<i>all good old men’s works</i>, we perceive by analyzing the ideas expressed -by the several words that the Romans said really: ‘work,’ -plural, nominative or accusative + ‘man,’ plural, masculine, -genitive + ‘all,’ plural, genitive + ‘good,’ plural, masculine, -genitive + ‘old,’ plural, masculine, genitive. Leaving <i>opera</i> out -of consideration, we find that plural number is expressed four -times, genitive case also four times, and masculine gender twice;<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_351" id="Page_351">[351]</a></span><a name="FNanchor_86_86" id="FNanchor_86_86"></a><a href="#Footnote_86_86" class="fnanchor">[86]</a> -in Old English the signs of number and case are found four times -each, while there is no indication of gender; in Danish the plural -number is marked four times and the case once. And finally, -in Modern English, we find each idea expressed once only; and -as nothing is lost in clearness, this method, as being the easiest and -shortest, must be considered the best. Mathematically the different -ways of rendering the same thing might be represented by the -formulas: anx + bnx + cnx = (an + bn + cn)x = (a + b + c)nx.</p> - -<p>This unusual faculty of ‘parenthesizing’ causes Danish, -and to a still greater degree English, to stand outside the definition -of the Aryan family of languages given by the earlier school of -linguists, according to which the Aryan substantive and adjective -can never be without a sign indicating case. Schleicher (NV 526) -says: “The radical difference between Magyar and Indo-Germanic -(Aryan) words is brought out distinctly by the fact that the postpositions -belonging to co-ordinated nouns can be dispensed with -in all the nouns except the last of the series, e.g. <i lang="hu" xml:lang="hu">a jó embernek</i>, -‘<span lang="de" xml:lang="de">dem guten menschen</span>’ (<i lang="hu" xml:lang="hu">a</i> for <i lang="hu" xml:lang="hu">az</i>, demonstrative pronoun, article; -<i lang="hu" xml:lang="hu">jó</i>, good; <i lang="hu" xml:lang="hu">ember</i>, man, <i>-nek</i>, <i>-nak</i>, postposition with pretty much -the same meaning as the dative case), for <i lang="hu" xml:lang="hu">az-nak</i> (annak) <i lang="hu" xml:lang="hu">jó-nak -ember-nek</i>, as if in Greek you should say <span lang="grc" xml:lang="grc">το ἀγαθο ἀνθρώπῳ</span>. An -attributive adjective preceding its noun always has the form of -the pure stem, the sign of plurality and the postposition indicating -case not being added to it. Magyars say, for instance, <i lang="hu" xml:lang="hu">Hunyady -Mátyás magyar király-nak</i> (to the Hungarian king Mathew Hunyady), -<i>-nak</i> belonging here to all the preceding words. Nearly -the same thing takes place where several words are joined together -by means of ‘and.’”</p> - -<p>Now, this is an exact parallel to the English group genitive -in cases like ‘all good old men’s works,’ ‘the King of England’s -power,’ ‘Beaumont and Fletcher’s plays,’ ‘somebody else’s -turn,’ etc. The way in which this group genitive has developed -in comparatively recent times may be summed up as follows -(see the detailed exposition in my ChE ch. iii.): In the oldest -English <i>-s</i> is a case-ending, like all others found in flexional languages; -it forms together with the body of the noun one indivisible -whole, in which it is sometimes impossible to tell where the -kernel of the word ends and the ending begins (compare <i>endes</i> -from <i>ende</i> and <i>heriges</i> from <i>here</i>); only some words have this -ending, and in others the genitive is indicated in other ways. As -to syntax, the meaning or function of the genitive is complicated -and rather vague, and there are no fixed rules for the position of -the genitive in the sentence.</p> - -<p>In course of time we witness a gradual development towards -greater regularity and precision. The partitive, objective, descrip<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_352" id="Page_352">[352]</a></span>tive -and some other functions of the genitive become obsolete; -the genitive is invariably put immediately before the word it -belongs to; irregular forms disappear, the <i>s</i> ending alone surviving -as the fittest, so that at last we have one definite ending with one -definite function and one definite position.</p> - -<p>In Old English, when several words belonging together were -to be put in the genitive, each of them had to take the genitive -mark, though this was often different in different words, and thus -we had combinations like <i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">anes reades mannes</i>, ‘a red man’s’ | <i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">þære -godlican lufe</i>, ‘the godlike love’s’ | <i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">ealra godra ealdra manna -weorc</i>, etc. Now the <i>s</i> used everywhere is much more independent, -and may be separated from the principal word by an adverb like -<i>else</i> or by a prepositional group like <i>of England</i>, and one <i>s</i> is -sufficient at the end even of a long group of words. Here, then, we -see in the full light of comparatively recent history a giving up -of the old flexion with its inseparability of the constituent elements -of the word and with its strictness of concord; an easier and -more regular system is developed, in which the ending leads a -more independent existence and may be compared with the -‘agglutinated’ elements of such a language as Magyar or even -with the ‘empty words’ of Chinese grammar. The direction of -this development is the direct opposite of that assumed by -most linguists for the development of languages in prehistoric -times.</p> - - -<h4><a id="XVIII_9"></a>XVIII.—§ 9. Bantu Concord.</h4> - -<p>One of the most characteristic traits of the history of English -is thus seen to be the gradual getting rid of concord as of something -superfluous. Where concord is found in our family of -languages, it certainly is an heirloom from a primitive age, and -strikes us now as an outcome of a tendency to be more explicit -than to more advanced people seems strictly necessary. It is -on a par with the ‘concord of negatives,’ as we might term the -emphasizing of the negative idea by seemingly redundant repetitions. -In Old English it was the regular idiom to say: <span lang="ang" xml:lang="ang"><i>n</i>an man -<i>n</i>yste <i>n</i>an þing</span>, ‘no man not-knew nothing’; so it was in -Chaucer’s time: he <i>n</i>euere yet <i>n</i>o vileynye <i>n</i>e sayde In all his -lyf unto <i>n</i>o manner wight; and it survives in the vulgar speech -of our own days: there was <i>n</i>iver <i>n</i>obody else gen (gave) me -<i>n</i>othin’ (George Eliot); whereas standard Modern English is -content with one negation: no man knew anything, etc. That -concord is really a primitive trait (though not, of course, found -equally distributed among all ‘primitive peoples’) will be seen -also by a rapid glance at the structure of the South African group<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_353" id="Page_353">[353]</a></span> -of languages called Bantu, for here we find not only repetition of -negatives, but also other phenomena of concord in specially -luxuriant growth.</p> - -<p>I take the following examples chiefly from W. H. I. Bleek’s -excellent, though unfortunately unfinished, <cite>Comparative Grammar</cite>, -though I am well aware that expressions like <i>si-m-tanda</i> (we love -him) “are never used by natives with this meaning without being -determined by some other expression” (Torrend, p. 7). The -Zulu word for ‘man’ is <i lang="zu" xml:lang="zu">umuntu</i>; every word in the same or a -following sentence having any reference to that word must begin -with something to remind you of the beginning of <i lang="zu" xml:lang="zu">umuntu</i>. This -will be, according to fixed rules, either <i>mu</i> or <i>u</i>, or <i>w</i> or <i>m</i>. In -the following sentence, the meaning of which is ‘our handsome -man (or woman) appears, we love him (or her),’ these reminders -(as I shall term them) are printed in italics:</p> - - -<div class="center"> -<table border="0" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" summary=""> -<tr lang="zu" xml:lang="zu"><td><i>umu</i>ntu</td><td><i>w</i>etu</td><td><i>omu</i>chle <i>u</i>yabonakala,</td><td>si<i>m</i>tanda (1)</td></tr> -<tr><td>man</td><td>ours</td><td>handsome appears,</td><td>we love.</td></tr> -</table></div> -<p>If, instead of the singular, we take the corresponding plural -<i lang="zu" xml:lang="zu">abantu</i>, ‘men, people’ (whence the generic name of Bantu), the -sentence looks quite different:</p> - -<p lang="zu" xml:lang="zu"> -<i>aba</i>ntu <i>b</i>etu <i>aba</i>chle <i>ba</i>yabonakala, si<i>ba</i>tanda (2).<br /> -</p> - -<p>In the same way, if we successively take as our starting-point -<i lang="zu" xml:lang="zu">ilizwe</i>, ‘country,’ the corresponding plural <i lang="zu" xml:lang="zu">amazwe</i>, ‘countries,’ -<i lang="zu" xml:lang="zu">isizwe</i>, ‘nation,’ <i lang="zu" xml:lang="zu">izizwe</i>, ‘nations,’ <i lang="zu" xml:lang="zu">intombi</i>, ‘girl,’ <i lang="zu" xml:lang="zu">izintombi</i>, -‘girls,’ we get:</p> - - -<div class="center"> -<table border="0" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" summary=""> -<tr lang="zu" xml:lang="zu"><td><i>ili</i>zwe</td><td><i>l</i>etu</td><td><i>eli</i>chle</td><td><i>li</i>yabonakala,</td><td>si<i>li</i>tanda</td><td>(5)</td></tr> -<tr lang="zu" xml:lang="zu"><td><i>ama</i>zwe</td><td><i>e</i>tu</td><td><i>ama</i>chle</td><td><i>a</i>yabonakala,</td><td>si<i>wa</i>tanda</td><td>(6)</td></tr> -<tr lang="zu" xml:lang="zu"><td><i>isi</i>zwe</td><td><i>s</i>etu</td><td><i>esi</i>chle</td><td><i>si</i>yabonakala,</td><td>si<i>si</i>tanda</td><td>(7)</td></tr> -<tr lang="zu" xml:lang="zu"><td><i>izi</i>zwe</td><td><i>z</i>etu</td><td><i>ezi</i>chle</td><td><i>zi</i>yabonakala,</td><td>si<i>zi</i>tanda</td><td>(8)</td></tr> -<tr lang="zu" xml:lang="zu"><td><i>in</i>tombi</td><td><i>y</i>etu</td><td><i>en</i>chle</td><td><i>i</i>yabonakala,</td><td>si<i>yi</i>tanda</td><td>(9)</td></tr> -<tr lang="zu" xml:lang="zu"><td><i>izin</i>tombi</td><td><i>z</i>etu</td><td><i>ezin</i>chle</td><td><i>zi</i>yabonakala,</td><td>si<i>zi</i>tanda</td><td>(10)</td></tr> -<tr><td>(girls)</td><td>our</td><td>handsome</td><td>appear,</td><td>we love.<a name="FNanchor_87_87" id="FNanchor_87_87"></a><a href="#Footnote_87_87" class="fnanchor">[87]</a></td></tr> -</table></div> -<p>In other words, every substantive belongs to one of several -classes, of which some have a singular and others a plural meaning; -each of these classes has its own prefix, by means of which the -concord of the parts of a sentence is indicated. (An inhabitant<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_354" id="Page_354">[354]</a></span> -of the country of <i>U</i>ganda is called <i>mu</i>ganda, pl. <i>ba</i>ganda or <i>wa</i>ganda; -the language spoken there is <i>lu</i>ganda.)</p> - -<p>It will be noticed that adjectives such as ‘handsome’ or -‘ours’ take different shapes according to the word to which they -refer; in the Zulu Lord’s Prayer ‘thy’ is found in the following -forms: <span lang="zu" xml:lang="zu"><i>l</i>ako</span> (referring to <span lang="zu" xml:lang="zu"><i>i</i>gama</span>, ‘name,’ for <span lang="zu" xml:lang="zu"><i>ili</i>gama</span>, 5), <span lang="zu" xml:lang="zu"><i>b</i>ako</span>, -(<span lang="zu" xml:lang="zu"><i>ubu</i>kumkani</span>, ‘kingdom,’ 14), <span lang="zu" xml:lang="zu"><i>y</i>ako</span> (<span lang="zu" xml:lang="zu"><i>in</i>tando</span>, ‘will,’ 9). So also -the genitive case of the same noun has a great many different -forms, for the genitive relation is expressed by the reminder of -the governing word + the ‘relative particle’ <i>a</i> (which is combined -with the following sound); take, for instance, <i lang="zu" xml:lang="zu">inkosi</i>, ‘chief, -king’:</p> - -<p> -<span lang="zu" xml:lang="zu"><i>umu</i>ntu <i>w</i>enkosi</span>, ‘the king’s man’ (1; <i>we</i> for <i>w</i> + <i>a</i> + <i>i</i>).<br /> -<span lang="zu" xml:lang="zu"><i>aba</i>ntu <i>b</i>enkosi</span>, ‘the king’s men’ (2).<br /> -<span lang="zu" xml:lang="zu"><i>ili</i>zwe <i>l</i>enkosi</span>, ‘the king’s country’ (5).<br /> -<span lang="zu" xml:lang="zu"><i>ama</i>zwe <i>e</i>nkosi</span>, ‘the king’s countries’ (6).<br /> -<span lang="zu" xml:lang="zu"><i>isi</i>zwe <i>s</i>enkosi</span>, ‘the king’s nation’ (7).<br /> -<span lang="zu" xml:lang="zu"><i>uku</i>tanda <i>kw</i>enkosi</span>, ‘the king’s love’ (15).<br /> -</p> - -<p>Livingstone says that these apparently redundant repetitions -“impart energy and perspicuity to each member of a proposition, -and prevent the possibility of a mistake as to the antecedent.” -These prefixes are necessary to the Bantu languages; still, Bleek -is right as against Livingstone in speaking of the repetitions as -cumbersome, just as the endings of Latin <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">multorum virorum -antiquorum</i> are cumbersome, however indispensable they may -have been to the contemporaries of Cicero.</p> - -<p>These African phenomena have been mentioned here chiefly -to show to what lengths concord may go in the speech of some -primitive peoples. The prevalent opinion is that each of these -prefixes (<i>umu</i>, <i>aba</i>, <i>ili</i>, etc.) was originally an independent word, -and that thus words like <i lang="zu" xml:lang="zu">umuntu</i>, <i lang="zu" xml:lang="zu">ilizwe</i>, were at first compounds -like E. <i>steamship</i>, where it would evidently be possible to imagine -a reference to this word by means of a repeated <i>ship</i> (our ship, -which ship is a great ship, the ship appears, we love the ship); -but at any rate the Zulus extend this principle to cases that would -be parallel to an imagined repetition of <i>friendship</i> by means of the -same <i>ship</i>, or to referring to <i>steamer</i> by means of the ending <i>er</i> -(Bleek 107). Bleek and others have tried to find out by an -analysis of the words making up the different classes what may -have been the original meaning of the class-prefix, but very often -the connecting tie is extremely loose, and in many cases it seems -that a word might with equal right have belonged to another -class than the one to which it actually belongs. The connexion -also frequently seems to be a derived rather than an original one,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_355" id="Page_355">[355]</a></span> -and much in this class-division is just as arbitrary as the reference -of Aryan nouns to each of the three genders. In several of the -classes the words have a definite numerical value, so that they go -together in pairs as corresponding singular and plural nouns; but -the existence of a certain number of exceptions shows that these -numerical values cannot originally have been associated with the -class prefixes, but must be due to an extension by analogy -(Bleek 140 ff.). The starting-point may have been substantives -standing to each other in the relation of ‘person’ to ‘people,’ -‘soldier’ to ‘army,’ ‘tree’ to ‘forest,’ etc. The prefixes of -such words as the latter of each of these pairs will easily acquire -a certain sense of plurality, no matter what they may have meant -originally, and then they will lend themselves to forming a kind -of plural in other nouns, being either put instead of the prefix -belonging properly to the noun (<span lang="zu" xml:lang="zu"><i>ama</i>zwe</span>, ‘countries,’ 6; <span lang="zu" xml:lang="zu"><i>ili</i>zwe</span>, -‘country,’ 5), or placed before it (<span lang="zu" xml:lang="zu"><i>ma-lu</i>to</span>, ‘spoons,’ 6, <span lang="zu" xml:lang="zu"><i>lu</i>to</span>, -‘spoon,’ 11).</p> - -<p>In some of the languages “the forms of some of the prefixes -have been so strongly contracted as almost to defy identification.” -(Bleek 234). All the prefixes probably at first had fuller forms -than appear now. Bleek noticed that the <i>ma-</i> prefix never, except -in some degraded languages, had a corresponding <i>ma-</i> as particle, -but, on the contrary, is followed in the sentence by <i>ga-</i>, <i>ya-</i>, or -<i>a-</i>, and <i>mu-</i> (3) generally has a corresponding particle <i>gu-</i>. Now, -Sir Harry Johnston (<i>The Uganda Protectorate</i>, 1902, 2. 891) has -found that on Mount Eldon and in Kavirondo there are some very -archaic forms of Bantu languages, in which <i>gumu-</i> and <i>gama-</i> -are the commonly used forms of the <i>mu-</i> and <i>ma-</i> prefixes, as well -as <i>baba-</i> and <i>bubu-</i> for ordinary <i>ba-</i>, <i>bu-</i>; he infers that the original -forms of <i>mu-</i>, <i>ma-</i> were <i>ngumu-</i>, <i>ngama-</i>. I am not so sure that -he is right when he says that these prefixes were originally “words -which had a separate meaning of their own, either as directives -or demonstrative pronouns, as indications of sex, weakness, littleness -or greatness, and so on”—for, as we shall see in a subsequent -chapter, such grammatical instruments may have been at first -inseparable parts of long words—parts which had no meaning -of their own—and have acquired some more or less vague grammatical -meaning through being extended gradually to other words -with which they had originally nothing to do. The actual -irregularity in their distribution certainly seems to point in that -direction.</p> - - -<h4>XVIII.—§ 10. Word Order Again.</h4> - -<p>Mention has already been made here and there of word order -and its relation to the great question of simplification of gram<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_356" id="Page_356">[356]</a></span>matical -structure; but it will be well in this place to return to the -subject in a more comprehensive way. The theory of word order -has long been the Cinderella of linguistic science: how many even -of the best and fullest grammars are wholly, or almost wholly, silent -about it! And yet it presents a great many problems of high -importance and of the greatest interest, not only in those languages -in which word order has been extensively utilized for grammatical -purposes, such as English and Chinese, but in other languages -as well.</p> - -<p>In historical times we see a gradual evolution of strict rules -for word order, while our general impression of the older stages -of our languages is that words were often placed more or less at -random. This is what we should naturally expect from primitive -man, whose thoughts and words are most likely to have come to -him rushing helter-skelter, in wild confusion. One cannot, of -course, apply so strong an expression to languages such as -Sanskrit, Greek or Gothic; still, compared with our modern -languages, it cannot be denied that there is in them much more -of what from one point of view is disorder, and from another -freedom.</p> - -<p>This is especially the case with regard to the mutual position -of the subject of a sentence and its verb. In the earliest times, -sometimes one of them comes first, and sometimes the other. -Then there is a growing tendency to place the subject first, and -as this position is found not only in most European languages -but also in Chinese and other languages of far-away, the phenomenon -must be founded in the very nature of human thought, -though its non-prevalence in most of the older Aryan languages -goes far to show that this particular order is only natural to -<i>developed</i> human thought.</p> - -<p>Survivals of the earlier state of things are found here and -there; thus, in German ballad style: “<span lang="de" xml:lang="de">Kam ein schlanker bursch -gegangen</span>.” But it is well worth noticing that such an arrangement -is generally avoided, in German as well as in the other modern -languages of Western Europe, and in those cases where there is -some reason for placing the verb before the subject, the speaker -still, as it were, satisfies his grammatical instinct by putting a -kind of sham subject before the verb, as in E. <i>there</i> comes a time -when ..., Dan. <span lang="da" xml:lang="da"><i>der</i> kommer en tid da ...</span>, G. <span lang="de" xml:lang="de"><i>es</i> kommt eine -zeit wo ...</span>, Fr. <span lang="fr" xml:lang="fr"><i>il</i> arrive un temps où....</span></p> - -<p>In Keltic the habitual word order placed the verb first, but -little by little the tendency prevailed to introduce most sentences -by a periphrasis, as in ‘(it) is the man that comes,’ and as that -came to mean merely ‘the man comes,’ the word order Subject-Verb -was thus brought about circuitously.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_357" id="Page_357">[357]</a></span></p> - -<p>Before this particular word order, Subject-Verb, was firmly -established in modern Gothonic languages, an exception obtained -wherever the sentence began with some other word than the -subject; this might be some important member of the proposition -that was placed first for the sake of emphasis, or it might be some -unimportant little adverb, but the rule was that the verb should -at any rate have the second place, as being felt to be in some way -the middle or central part of the whole, and the subject had then -to be content to be placed after the verb. This was the rule in -Middle English and in Old French, and it is still strictly followed -in German and Danish: <span lang="de" xml:lang="de">Gestern <i>kam das schiff</i></span> | <span lang="da" xml:lang="da">Pigen <i>gav jeg -kagen, ikke drengen</i></span>. Traces of the practice are still found in -English in parenthetic sentences to indicate who is the speaker -(‘Oh, yes,’ said he), and after a somewhat long subjunct, if there -is no object (‘About this time died the gentle Queen Elizabeth’), -where this word order is little more than a stylistic trick to avoid -the abrupt effect of ending the sentence with an isolated verb -like <i>died</i>. Otherwise the order Subject-Verb is almost universal -in English.</p> - - -<h4>XVIII.—§ 11. Compromises.</h4> - -<p>The inverted order, Verb-Subject, is used extensively in many -languages to express questions, wishes and invitations. But, as -already stated, this order was not originally peculiar to such -sentences. A question was expressed, no matter how the words -were arranged, by pronouncing the whole sentence, or the most -important part of it, in a peculiar rising tone. This manner of -indicating questions is, of course, still kept up in modern speech, -and is often the only thing to show that a question is meant -(‘John?’ | ‘John is here?’). But although there was thus a -natural manner of expressing questions, and although the inverted -word order was used in other sorts of sentences as well, yet in -course of time there came to be a connexion between the two -things, so that putting the verb before the subject was felt as -implying a question. The rising tone then came to be less necessary, -and is much less marked in inverted sentences like ‘Is John -here?’ than in sentences with the usual word order: ‘John -is here?’</p> - -<p>Now, after this method of indicating questions had become -comparatively fixed, and after the habit of thinking of the subject -first had become all but universal, these two principles entered -into conflict, the result of which has been, in English, Danish -and French, the establishment in some cases of various kinds of -compromise, in which the interrogatory word order has formally<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_358" id="Page_358">[358]</a></span> -carried the day, while really the verb, that is to say the verb which -means something, is placed after its subject. In English, this is -attained by means of the auxiliary <i>do</i>: instead of Shakespeare’s -“Came he not home to-night?” (<cite>Ro.</cite> <span class="smcap lowercase">II.</span> 4. 2) we now say, “Did -he not (or, Didn’t he) come home to-night?” and so in all cases -where a similar arrangement is not already brought about by the -presence of some other auxiliary, ‘Will he come?’, ‘Can he -come?’, etc. Where we have an interrogatory pronoun as a -subject, no auxiliary is required, because the natural front position -of the pronoun maintains the order Subject-Verb (Who came? | -What happened?). But if the pronoun is not the subject, <i>do</i> -is required to establish the balance between the two principles -(Who(m) did you see? | What does he say?).</p> - -<p>In Danish, the verb <i lang="da" xml:lang="da">mon</i>, used in the old language to indicate -a weak necessity or a vague futurity, fulfils to a certain extent -the same office as the English <i>do</i>; up to the eighteenth century -<i lang="da" xml:lang="da">mon</i> was really an auxiliary verb, followed by the infinitive: ‘<span lang="da" xml:lang="da">Mon -han komme?</span>’; but now the construction has changed, the -indicative is used with <i lang="da" xml:lang="da">mon</i>: ‘<span lang="da" xml:lang="da">Mon han kommer?</span>’, and <i lang="da" xml:lang="da">mon</i> is -no longer a verb, but an interrogatory adverb, which serves the -purpose of placing the subject before the verb, besides making -the question more indefinite and vague: ‘<span lang="da" xml:lang="da">Kommer han?</span>’ means -‘Does he come?’ or ‘Will he come?’ but ‘<span lang="da" xml:lang="da">Mon han kommer?</span>’ -means ‘Does he come (Will he come), do you think?’</p> - -<p>French, finally, has developed two distinct forms of compromise -between the conflicting principles, for in ‘<span lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Est-ce que Pierre bat -Jean?</span>’ <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">est-ce</i> represents the interrogatory and <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Pierre bat</i> the usual -word order, and in ‘<span lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Pierre bat-il Jean?</span>’ the real subject is placed -before and the sham subject after the verb. Here also, as in -Danish, the ultimate result is the creation of ‘empty words,’ or -interrogatory adverbs: <i>est-ce-que</i> in every respect except in spelling -is one word (note that it does not change with the tense of the -main verb), and thus is a sentence prefix to introduce questions; -and in popular speech we find another empty word, namely <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">ti</i> -(see, among other scholars, G. Paris, <cite lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Mélanges ling.</cite> 276). The -origin of this <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">ti</i> is very curious. While the <i>t</i> of Latin <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">amat</i>, etc., -coming after a vowel, disappeared at a very early period of the -French language, and so produced <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">il aime</i>, etc., the same <i>t</i> was -kept in Old French wherever a consonant protected it,<a name="FNanchor_88_88" id="FNanchor_88_88"></a><a href="#Footnote_88_88" class="fnanchor">[88]</a> and so -gave the forms <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">est</i>, <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">sont</i>, <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">fait</i> (from <i>fact</i>, for <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">facit</i>), <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">font</i>, <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">chantent</i>, -etc. From <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">est-il</i>, <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">fait-il</i>, etc., the <i>t</i> was then by analogy reintroduced -in <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">aime-t-il</i>, instead of the earlier <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">aime il</i>. Now, toward<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_359" id="Page_359">[359]</a></span>s -the end of the Middle Ages, French final consonants were as a rule -dropped in speech, except when followed immediately by a word -beginning with a vowel. Consequently, while <i>t</i> is mute in sentences -like ‘<span lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Ton frère <i>dit</i></span> | <span lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Tes frères <i>disent</i></span>,’ it is sounded in the corresponding -questions, ‘<span lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Ton frère <i>dit-il</i>? Tes frères <i>disent-ils</i>?</span>’ -As the final consonants of <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">il</i> and <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">ils</i> are also generally dropped, -even by educated speakers, the difference between interrogatory -and declarative sentences in the spoken language depends solely -on the addition of <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">ti</i> to the verb: written phonetically, the pairs -will be:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> -[tɔ̃ frɛ·r di—tɔ̃ frɛ·r di ti]<br /> -[te frɛ·r di·z—te frɛ·r di·z ti].<br /> -</div> - -<p>Now, popular instinct seizes upon this <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">ti</i> as a convenient sign -of interrogative sentences, and, forgetting its origin, uses it even -with a feminine subject, turning ‘<span lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Ta sœur di(t)</span>’ into the question -‘<span lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Ta sœur di ti?</span>’, and in the first person: ‘<span lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Je di ti?</span>’ ‘<span lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Nous -dison ti?</span>’ ‘<span lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Je vous fais-ti tort?</span>’ (Maupassant). In novels this -is often written as if it were the adverb <i>y</i>: <span lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">C’est-y pas vrai? | Je -suis t’y bête! | C’est-y vous le monsieur de l’Académie qui va -avoir cent ans?</span> (Daudet). I have dwelt on this point because, -besides showing the interest of many problems of word order, it also -throws some light on the sometimes unexpected ways by which -languages must often travel to arrive at new expressions for grammatical -categories.</p> - -<p>It was mentioned above that the inverted order, Verb-Subject, -is used extensively, not only in questions, but also to express -wishes and invitations. Here, too, we find in English compromises -with the usual order, Subject-Verb. For, apart from such formulas -as ‘Long live the King!’ a wish is generally expressed by means -of <i>may</i>, which is placed first, while the real verb comes after the -subject: ‘May she be happy!’, and instead of the old ‘Go we!’ -we have now ‘Let us go!’ with <i>us</i>, the virtual subject, placed -before the real verb. When a pronoun is wanted with an imperative, -it used to be placed after the verb, as in Shakespeare: ‘<i>Stand -thou</i> forth’ and ‘<i>Fear</i> not <i>thou</i>,’ or in the Bible: ‘<i>Turn ye</i> unto -him,’ but now the usual order has prevailed: ‘<i>You try!</i>’ ‘<i>You -take</i> that seat, and <i>somebody fetch</i> a few more chairs!’ But if -the auxiliary <i>do</i> is used, we have the compromise order: ‘<i>Don’t -you stir!</i>’</p> - - -<h4>XVIII.—§ 12. Order Beneficial?</h4> - -<p>I have here selected one point, the place of the subject, to -illustrate the growing regularity in word order; but the same -tendency is manifested in other fields as well: the place of the -object (or of two objects, if we have an indirect besides a direct<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_360" id="Page_360">[360]</a></span> -object), the place of the adjunct adjective, the place of a subordinate -adverb, which by coming regularly before a certain -case may become a preposition ‘governing’ that case, etc. It -cannot be denied that the tendency towards a more regular word -order is universal, and in accordance with the general trend of -this inquiry we must next ask the question: Is this tendency a -beneficial one? Does the more regular word order found in -recent stages of our languages constitute a progress in linguistic -structure? Or should it be deplored because it hinders freedom -of movement?</p> - -<p>In answering this question we must first of all beware of -letting our judgment be run away with by the word ‘freedom.’ -Because freedom is desirable elsewhere, it does not follow that -it should be the best thing in this domain; just as above we did -not allow ourselves to be imposed on by the phrase ‘wealth of -forms,’ so here we must be on our guard against the word ‘free’: -what if we turned the question in another way: Which is preferable, -order or disorder? It may be true that, viewed exclusively from -the standpoint of the speaker, freedom would seem to be a great -advantage, as it is a restraint to him to be obliged to follow strict -rules; but an orderly arrangement is decidedly in the interest -of the hearer, as it very considerably facilitates his understanding -of what is said; it is therefore, though indirectly, in the interest of -the speaker too, because he naturally speaks for the purpose -of being understood. Besides, he is soon in his turn to become -the hearer: as no one is exclusively hearer or speaker, there can -be no real conflict of interest between the two.</p> - -<p>If it be urged in favour of a free word order that we owe a -certain regard to the interests of poets, it must be taken into consideration, -first, that we cannot all of us be poets, and that a -regard to all those of us who resemble Molière’s M. Jourdain in -speaking prose without being aware of it is perhaps, after all, more -important than a regard for those very few who are in the enviable -position of writing readable verse; secondly, that a statistical -investigation would, no doubt, give as its result that those poets -who make the most extensive use of inversions are not among the -greatest of their craft; and, finally, that so many methods are -found of neutralizing the restraint of word order, in the shape of -particles, passive voice, different constructions of sentences, etc., -that no artist in language need despair.</p> - -<p>So far, we have scarcely done more than clear the ground before -answering our question. And now we must recognize that there -are some rules of word order which cannot be called beneficial -in any way; they are like certain rules of etiquette, in so far as -one can see no reason for their existence, and yet one is obliged to<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_361" id="Page_361">[361]</a></span> -bow to them. Historians may, in some cases, be able to account -for their origin and show that they had a <i>raison d’être</i> at some -remote period; but the circumstances that called them into existence -then have passed away, and they are now felt to be restraints -with no concurrent advantage to reconcile us to their observance. -Among rules of this class we may reckon those for placing the -French pronouns now before, and now after, the verb, now with -the dative and now with the accusative first, ‘<span lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">elle <i>me le</i> donne | elle -<i>le lui</i> donne | donnez-<i>le moi</i> | ne <i>me le</i> donnez pas</span>.’ And, again, -the rules for placing the verb, object, etc., in German subordinate -clauses otherwise than in main sentences. That the latter rules -are defective and are inferior to the English rules, which are the -same for the two kinds of sentences, was pointed out before, when -we examined Johannson’s German sentences (p. <a href="#Page_341">341</a>), but here -we may state that the real, innermost reason for condemning them -is their inconsistency: the same rule does not apply in all cases. -It seems possible to establish the important principle that the -more consistent a rule for word order is, the more useful it is in -the economy of speech, not only as facilitating the understanding -of what is said, but also as rendering possible certain thoroughgoing -changes in linguistic structure.</p> - - -<h4>XVIII.—§ 13. Word Order and Simplification.</h4> - -<p>This, then, is the conclusion I arrive at, that as simplification -of grammatical structure, abolition of case distinctions, and so -forth, always go hand in hand with the development of a fixed -word order, this cannot be accidental, but there must exist a -relation of cause and effect between the two phenomena. Which, -then, is the <i>prius</i> or cause? To my mind undoubtedly the fixed -word order, so that the grammatical simplification is the <i>posterius</i> -or effect. It is, however, by no means uncommon to find a half-latent -conception in people’s minds that the flexional endings were -first lost ‘by phonetic decay,’ or ‘through the blind operation -of sound laws,’ and that then a fixed word order had to step in -to make up for the loss of the previous forms of expression. But -if this were true we should have to imagine an intervening period -in which the mutual relations of words were indicated in neither -way; a period, in fact, in which speech was unintelligible and -consequently practically useless. The theory is therefore untenable. -It follows that a fixed word order must have come in first: it -would come quite gradually as a natural consequence of greater -mental development and general maturity, when the speaker’s -ideas no longer came into his mind helter-skelter, but in orderly -sequence. If before the establishment of some sort of fixed<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_362" id="Page_362">[362]</a></span> -word order any tendency to slur certain final consonants or vowels -of grammatical importance had manifested itself, it could not -have become universal, as it would have been constantly checked -by the necessity that speech should be intelligible, and that therefore -those marks which showed the relation of different words -should not be obliterated. But when once each word was placed -at the exact spot where it properly belonged, then there was no -longer anything to forbid the endings being weakened by assimilation, -etc., or being finally dropped altogether.</p> - -<p>To bring out my view I have been obliged in the preceding -paragraph to use expressions that should not be taken too literally; -I have spoken as if the changes referred to were made ‘in the -lump,’ that is, as if the word order was first settled in every -respect, and after that the endings began to be dropped. The -real facts are, of course, much more complicated, changes of one -kind being interwoven with changes of the other in such a way as -to render it difficult, if not impossible, in any particular case to -discover which was the <i>prius</i> and which the <i>posterius</i>. We are -not able to lay our finger on one spot and say: Here final <i>m</i> or -<i>n</i> was dropped, because it was now rendered superfluous as a case-sign -on account of the accusative being invariably placed after -the verb, or for some other such reason. Nevertheless, the essential -truth of my hypothesis seems to me unimpeachable. Look at -Latin final <i>s</i>. Cicero (<cite lang="la" xml:lang="la">Orat.</cite> 48. 161) expressly tells us, what is -corroborated by a good many inscriptions, that there existed a -strong tendency to drop final <i>s</i>; but the tendency did not prevail. -The reason seems obvious; take a page of Latin prose and try -the effect of striking out all final <i>s</i>’s, and you will find that it will -be extremely difficult to determine the meaning of many passages; -a consonant playing so important a part in the endings of nouns -and verbs could not be left out without loss in a language possessing -so much freedom in regard to word position as Latin. Consequently -it was kept, but in course of time word position became -more and more subject to laws; and when, centuries later, after -the splitting up of Latin into the Romanic languages, the tendency -to slur over final <i>s</i> knocked once more at the door, it met no longer -with the same resistance: final <i>s</i> disappeared, first in Italian and -Rumanian, then in French, where it was kept till about the end -of the Middle Ages, and it is now beginning to sound a retreat in -Spanish; see on Andalusian Fr. Wulff, <cite lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Un Chapitre de Phonétique -Andalouse</cite>, 1889.</p> - -<p>The main line of development in historical times has, I take -it, been the following: first, a period in which words were placed -somewhere or other according to the fancy of the moment, but -many of them provided with signs that would show their mutual<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_363" id="Page_363">[363]</a></span> -relations; next, a period with retention of these signs, combined -with a growing regularity in word order, and at the same time in -many connexions a more copious employment of prepositions; -then an increasing indistinctness and finally complete dropping -of the endings, word order (and prepositions) being now sufficient -to indicate the relations at first shown by endings and similar -means.</p> - -<p>Viewed in this light, the transition from freedom in word -position to greater strictness must be considered a beneficial -change, since it has enabled the speakers to do away with more -circumstantial and clumsy linguistic means. Schiller says:</p> - -<div class="poetry-container"><div class="poetry"><div class="stanza"> - <div class="verse"><span lang="de" xml:lang="de">Jeden anderen meister erkennt man an dem, was er ausspricht;</span></div> - <div class="verse"><span lang="de" xml:lang="de">Was er weise verschweigt, zeigt mir den meister des stils.</span></div> -</div></div></div> - -<p>(Every other master is known by what he says, but the master -of style by what he is wisely silent on.) What style is to the -individual, the general laws of language are to the nation, and we -must award the palm to that language which makes it possible -“to be wisely silent” about things which in other languages have -to be expressed in a troublesome way, and which have often to -be expressed over and over again (vir<i>orum</i> omn<i>ium</i> bon<i>orum</i> -veter<i>um</i>, eal<i>ra</i> god<i>ra</i> eald<i>ra</i> mann<i>a</i>). Could any linguistic expedient -be more worthy of the genus <i>homo sapiens</i> than using for different -purposes, with different significations, two sentences like ‘John -beats Henry’ and ‘Henry beats John,’ or the four Danish ones, -‘Jens slaar Henrik—Henrik slaar Jens—slaar Jens Henrik?—slaar -Henrik Jens?’ (John beats Henry—H. beats J.—does J. -beat H.?—does H. beat J.?), or the Chinese use of <i>či</i> in different -places (Ch. XIX § <a href="#XIX_3">3</a>)? Cannot this be compared with the ingenious -Arabic system of numeration, in which 234 means something -entirely different from 324, or 423, or 432, and the ideas of “tens” -and “hundreds” are elegantly suggested by the order of the -characters, not, as in the Roman system, ponderously expressed?</p> - -<p>Now, it should not be forgotten that this system, “where more -is meant than meets the ear,” is not only more convenient, but -also clearer than flexions, as actually found in existing languages, -for word order in those languages which utilize it grammatically -is used much more consistently than any endings have ever been -in the old Aryan languages. It is not true, as Johannson would -have us believe, that the dispensing with old flexional endings was -too dearly bought, as it brought about increasing possibilities of -misunderstandings; for in the evolution of languages the discarding -of old flexions goes hand in hand with the development -of simpler and more regular expedients that are rather less liable -than the old ones to produce misunderstandings. Johannson<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_364" id="Page_364">[364]</a></span> -writes: “In contrast to Jespersen I do not consider that the -masterly expression is the one which is ‘wisely silent,’ and consequently -leaves the meaning to be partly guessed at, but the one -which is able to impart the meaning of the speaker or writer clearly -and perfectly”—but here he seems rather wide of the mark. For, -just as in reading the arithmetical symbol 234 we are perfectly -sure that two hundred and thirty-four is meant, and not three -hundred and forty-two, so in reading and hearing ‘The boy hates -the girl’ we cannot have the least doubt who hates whom. After -all, there is less guesswork in the grammatical understanding of -English than of Latin; cf. the examples given above, Ch. XVIII § 4, -p. <a href="#Page_343">343</a>.</p> - -<p>The tendency towards a fixed word order is therefore a progressive -one, directly as well as indirectly. The substitution of -word order for flexions means a victory of spiritual over material -agencies.</p> - - -<h4>XVIII.—§ 14. Summary.</h4> - -<p>We may here sum up the results of our comparison of the -main features of the grammatical structures of ancient and -modern languages belonging to our family of speech. We have -found certain traits common to the old stages and certain others -characteristic of recent ones, and have thus been enabled to -establish some definite tendencies of development and to find -out the general direction of change; and we have shown reasons -for the conviction that this development has on the whole and -in the main been a beneficial one, thus justifying us in speaking -about ‘progress in language.’ The points in which the superiority -of the modern languages manifested itself were the following:</p> - -<p>(1) The forms are generally shorter, thus involving less -muscular exertion and requiring less time for their enunciation.</p> - -<p>(2) There are not so many of them to burden the memory.</p> - -<p>(3) Their formation is much more regular.</p> - -<p>(4) Their syntactic use also presents fewer irregularities.</p> - -<p>(5) Their more analytic and abstract character facilitates -expression by rendering possible a great many combinations and -constructions which were formerly impossible or unidiomatic.</p> - -<p>(6) The clumsy repetitions known under the name of concord -have become superfluous.</p> - -<p>(7) A clear and unambiguous understanding is secured through -a regular word order.</p> - -<p>These several advantages have not been won all at once, and -languages differ very much in the velocity with which they have -been moving in the direction indicated; thus High German is -in many respects behindhand as compared with Low German;<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_365" id="Page_365">[365]</a></span> -European Dutch as compared with African Dutch; Swedish as -compared with Danish; and all of them as compared with English; -further, among the Romanic languages we see considerable variations -in this respect. What is maintained is chiefly that there -is a general tendency for languages to develop along the lines here -indicated, and that this development may truly, from the anthropocentric -point of view, which is the only justifiable one, be termed -a progressive evolution.</p> - -<p>But is this tendency really general, or even universal, in the -world of languages? It will easily be seen that my examples -have in the main been taken from comparatively few languages, -those with which I myself and presumably most of my readers -are most familiar, all of them belonging to the Gothonic and -Romanic branches of the Aryan family. Would the same theory -hold good with regard to other languages? Without pretending -to an intimate knowledge of the history of many languages, I -yet dare assert that my conclusions are confirmed by all those -languages whose history is accessible to us. Colloquial Irish and -Gaelic have in many ways a simpler grammatical structure than -the Oldest Irish. Russian has got rid of some of the complications -of Old Slavonic, and the same is true, even in a much higher degree, -of some of the other Slavonic languages; thus, Bulgarian has -greatly simplified its nominal and Serbian its verbal flexions. The -grammar of spoken Modern Greek is much less complicated than -that of the language of Homer or of Demosthenes. The structure -of Modern Persian is nearly as simple as English, though that of -Old Persian was highly complicated. In India we witness a -constant simplification of grammar from Sanskrit through Prakrit -and Pali to the modern languages, Hindi, Hindostani (Urdu), -Bengali, etc. Outside the Aryan world we see the same movement: -Hebrew is simpler and more regular than Assyrian, and spoken -Arabic than the old classical language, Koptic than Old Egyptian. -Of most of the other languages we are not in possession of written -records from very early times; still, we may affirm that in Turkish -there has been an evolution, though rather a slow one, of a similar -kind; and, as we shall see in a later chapter, Chinese seems to -have moved in the same direction, though the nature of its writing -makes the task of penetrating into its history a matter of extreme -difficulty. A comparative study of the numerous Bantu languages -spoken all over South Africa justifies us in thinking that their -evolution has been along the same lines: in some of them the -prefixes characterizing various classes of nouns have been reduced -in number and in extent (cf. above, § <a href="#XVIII_9">9</a>). Of one of them we have -a grammar two hundred years old, by Brusciotto à Vetralla -(re-edited by H. Grattan Guinness, London, 1882). A comparison<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_366" id="Page_366">[366]</a></span> -of his description with the language now spoken in the same -region (Mpongwe) shows that the class signs have dwindled down -considerably and the number of the classes has been reduced -from 16 to 10. In short, though we can only prove it with regard -to a minority of the multitudinous languages spoken on the globe, -this minority embraces <em>all</em> the languages known to us for so long -a period that we can talk of their history, and we may, therefore, -confidently maintain that what may be briefly termed the -tendency towards grammatical simplification is a universal fact -of linguistic history.</p> - -<p>That this simplification is progressive, i.e. beneficial, was -overlooked by the older generation of linguistic thinkers, because -they saw a kosmos, a beautiful and well-arranged world, in the -old languages, and missed in the modern ones several things that -they had been accustomed to regard with veneration. To some -extent they were right: every language, when studied in the -right spirit, presents so many beautiful points in its systematic -structure that it may be called a ‘kosmos.’ But it is not in -every way a kosmos; like everything human, it presents fine -and less fine features, and a comparative valuation, such as the -one here attempted, should take both into consideration. There -is undoubtedly an exquisite beauty in the old Greek language, -and the ancient Hellenes, with their artistic temperament, knew -how to turn that beauty to the best account in their literary -productions; but there is no less beauty in many modern languages—though -its appraisement is a matter of taste, and as such evades -scientific inquiry. But the æsthetic point of view is not the -decisive one: language is of the utmost importance to the whole -practical and spiritual life of mankind, and therefore has to be -estimated by such tests as those applied above; if that is done, -we cannot be blind to the fact that modern languages as wholes -are more practical than ancient ones, and that the latter present -so many more anomalies and irregularities than our present-day -languages that we may feel inclined, if not to apply to them -Shakespeare’s line, “Misshapen chaos of well-seeming forms,” -yet to think that the development has been from something nearer -chaos to something nearer kosmos.</p> - - - -<div class="chapter"> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_367" id="Page_367">[367]</a></span></p> - - - - - -<h3 class="nobreak"><a name="CHAPTER_XIX" id="CHAPTER_XIX">CHAPTER XIX</a><br /> - -<span class="larger">ORIGIN OF GRAMMATICAL ELEMENTS</span></h3> -</div> - -<div class="blockquot chaptersummary"> - -<p>§ 1. The Old Theory. § 2. Roots. § 3. Structure of Chinese. § 4. History -of Chinese. § 5. Recent Investigations. § 6. Roots Again. § 7. The -Agglutination Theory. § 8. Coalescence. § 9. Flexional Endings. -§ 10. Validity of the Theory. § 11. Irregularity Original. § 12. -Coalescence Theory dropped. § 13. Secretion. § 14. Extension of -Suffixes. § 15. Tainting of Suffixes. § 16. The Classifying Instinct. -§ 17. Character of Suffixes. § 18. Brugmann’s Theory of Gender. -§ 19. Final Considerations.</p></div> - - -<h4><a id="XIX_1"></a>XIX.—§ 1. The Old Theory.</h4> - -<p>What has been given in the last two chapters to clear up the -problem “Decay or progress?” has been based, as will readily -be noticed, exclusively on easily controllable facts of linguistic -history. So far, then, it has been very smooth sailing. But -now we must venture out into the open sea of prehistoric -speculations. Our voyage will be the safer if we never lose -sight of land and have a reliable compass tested in known -waters.</p> - -<p>In our historical survey of linguistic science we have already -seen that the prevalent theory concerning the prehistoric development -of our speech is this: an originally isolating language, -consisting of nothing but formless roots, passed through an -agglutinating stage, in which formal elements had been developed, -although these and the roots were mutually independent, -to the third and highest stage found in flexional languages, -in which formal elements penetrated the roots and made inseparable -unities with them. We shall now examine the basis of this -theory.</p> - -<p>In the beginning was the root. This is “the result of strict -and careful induction from the facts recorded in the dialects of -the different members of the family” (Whitney L 260). “The -firm foundation of the theory of roots lies in its logical necessity -as an inference from the doctrine of the historical growth of grammatical -apparatus” (Whitney G 200). “An instrumentality cannot -but have had rude and simple beginnings, such as, in language, -the so-called roots ... such imperfect hints of expression as -we call roots” (Whitney, <cite>Views of L.</cite> 338). These are really<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_368" id="Page_368">[368]</a></span> -three different statements: induction from the facts, a logical -inference from the doctrine about grammatical apparatus (i.e. -the usually accepted doctrine, but on what is that built up except -on the root theory?), and the <i>a priori</i> argument that an ‘instrumentality’ -must have simple beginnings. Even granted that -these three arguments given at different times, each of them in -turn as the sole argument, must be taken as supplementing each -other, the three-legged stool on which the root theory is thus made -to sit is a very shaky one, for none of the three legs is very solid, -as we shall soon have occasion to see.</p> - - -<h4>XIX.—§ 2. Roots.</h4> - -<p>In the beginning was the root—but what was it like? Bopp -took over the conception of root from the Indian grammarians, -and like them was convinced that roots were all monosyllabic, -and that view was accepted by his followers. These latter at -times attributed other phonetic qualities to these roots, e.g. that -they always had a short vowel (Curtius C 22). I quote from a -very recent treatise (Wood, “Indo-European Root-formation,” -<cite>Journal of Germ. Philol.</cite> 1. 291): “I range myself with those who -believe that IE. roots were monosyllabic ... these roots began, -for the most part, with a vowel. The vowels certainly were the -first utterances,<a name="FNanchor_89_89" id="FNanchor_89_89"></a><a href="#Footnote_89_89" class="fnanchor">[89]</a> and though we cannot make the beginning of -IE. speech coeval with that of human speech, we may at least -assume that language, at that time, was in a very primitive -state.”</p> - -<p>The number of these roots was not very great (Curtius, l.c.; -Wood 294). This seems a natural enough conclusion when we -picture the earliest speech as the most meagre thing possible.</p> - -<p>These few short monosyllabic roots were real words—this is -a necessary assumption if we are to imagine a root stage as a real -language, and it is often expressly stated; Curtius, for instance, -insists that roots are real and independent words (C 22, K 132); -cf. also Whitney, who says that the root <i>VAK</i> “had also once -an independent status, that it was a word” (L 255). We shall -see afterwards that there is another possible conception of what -a ‘root’ is; but let us here grant that it is a real word. The -question whether a language is possible which contains nothing -but such root words was always answered affirmatively by a -reference to Chinese—and it will therefore be well here to -give a short sketch of the chief structural features of that -language.</p> -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_369" id="Page_369">[369]</a></span></p> - -<h4><a id="XIX_3"></a>XIX.—§ 3. Structure of Chinese.</h4> - -<p>Each word consists of one syllable, neither more nor less. -Each of these monosyllables has one of four or five distinct musical -tones (not indicated here). The parts of speech are not distinguished: -<i>ta</i> means, according to circumstances, great, much, -magnitude, enlarge. Grammatical relations, such as number, -person, tense, case, etc., are not expressed by endings and similar -expedients; the word in itself is invariable. If a substantive is -to be taken as plural, this as a rule must be gathered from the -context; and it is only when there is any danger of misunderstanding, -or when the notion of plurality is to be emphasized, -that separate words are added, e.g. <i>ki</i> ‘some,’ <i>šu</i> ‘number.’ The -most important part of Chinese grammar is that dealing with -word order: <i>ta kuok</i> means ‘great state(s),’ but <i>kuok ta</i> ‘the -state is great,’ or, if placed before some other word which can -serve as a verb, ‘the greatness (size) of the state’; <i>tsï niu</i> ‘boys -and girls,’ but <i>niu tsï</i> ‘girl (female child),’ etc. Besides words -properly so called, or as Chinese grammarians call them ‘full -words,’ there are several ‘empty words’ serving for grammatical -purposes, often in a wonderfully clever and ingenious way. Thus -<i>či</i> has besides other functions that of indicating a genitive relation -more distinctly than would be indicated by the mere position of -the words; <i>min</i> (people) <i>lik</i> (power) is of itself sufficient to signify -‘the power of the people,’ but the same notion is expressed more -explicitly by <i>min či lik</i>. The same expedient is used to indicate -different sorts of connexion: if <i>či</i> is placed after the subject of -a sentence it makes it a genitive, thereby changing the sentence -into a kind of subordinate clause: <i>wang pao min</i> = ‘the king -protects the people’; but if you say <i>wang či pao min yeu</i> (is like) -<i>fu</i> (father) <i>či pao tsï</i>, the whole may be rendered, by means of the -English verbal noun, ‘the king’s protecting the people is like the -father’s protecting his child.’ Further, it is possible to change -a whole sentence into a genitive; for instance, <i>wang pao min či -tao</i> (manner) <i>k’o</i> (can) <i>kien</i> (see, be seen), ‘the manner in which -the king protects (the manner of the king’s protecting) his people -is to be seen’; and in yet other positions <i>či</i> can be used to join -a word-group consisting of a subject and verb, or of verb and -object, as an adjunct (attribute) to a noun; we have participles -to express the same modification of the idea: <i>wang pao či min</i> -‘the people protected by the king’; <i>pao min či wang</i> ‘a king protecting -the people.’ Observe here the ingenious method of distinguishing -the active and passive voices by strictly adhering to -the natural order and placing the subject before and the object -after the verb. If we put <i>i</i> before, and <i>ku</i> after, a single word, it<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_370" id="Page_370">[370]</a></span> -means ‘on account of, because of’ (cf. E. for ...’s sake); if -we place a whole sentence between these ‘brackets,’ as we might -term them, they are a sort of conjunction, and must be translated -‘because.’<a name="FNanchor_90_90" id="FNanchor_90_90"></a><a href="#Footnote_90_90" class="fnanchor">[90]</a></p> - - -<h4><a id="XIX_4"></a>XIX.—§ 4. History of Chinese.</h4> - -<p>These few examples will give some faint idea of the Chinese -language, and—if the whole older generation of scholars is to -be trusted—at the same time of the primeval structure of our -own language in the root-stage. But is it absolutely certain that -Chinese has retained its structure unchanged from the very first -period? By no means. As early as 1861, R. Lepsius, from a -comparison of Chinese and Tibetan, had derived the conviction -that “the monosyllabic character of Chinese is not original, but -is a lapse (!) from an earlier polysyllabic structure.” J. Edkins, -while still believing that the structure of Chinese represents “the -speech first used in the world’s grey morning” (<cite>The Evolution of -the Chinese Language</cite>, 1888), was one of the foremost to examine -the evidence offered by the language itself for the determination -of its earlier pronunciation. This, of course, is a much more complicated -problem in Chinese than in our alphabetically written -languages; for a Chinese character, standing for a complete word, -may remain unchanged while the pronunciation is changed indefinitely. -But by means of dialectal pronunciations in our own -day, of remarks in old Chinese dictionaries, of transcriptions of -Sanskrit words made by Chinese Buddhists, of rimes in ancient -poetry, of phonetic or partly phonetic elements in the word-characters, -etc., it has been possible to demonstrate that Chinese -pronunciation has changed considerably, and that the direction -of change has been, here as elsewhere, towards shorter and easier -word-forms. Above all, consonant groups have been simplified.</p> - -<p>In 1894 I ventured to offer my mite to these investigations -by suggesting an explanation of one phenomenon of pronunciation -in present-day Chinese. I refer to the change sometimes -wrought in the meaning of a word by the adoption of a different -tone. Thus <i>wang</i> with one tone is ‘king,’ with another ‘to become -king’; <i>lao</i> with one is ‘work,’ with another ‘pay the work’; -<i>tsung</i> with one tone means ‘follow,’ with another ‘follower,’ -and with a third ‘footsteps’; <i>tshi</i> with one tone is ‘wife,’ with -another ‘marry’; <i>haò</i> is ‘good,’ and <i>haó</i> is ‘love.’ Nay, meanings -so different as ‘acquire’ and ‘give’ (<i>sheu</i>) or ‘buy’ and ‘sell’ -(<i>mai</i>) are only distinguished by the tones. Edkins and V. Henry<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_371" id="Page_371">[371]</a></span> -(<cite lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Le Muséon</cite>, Louvain, 1882, i. 435) have attempted to explain this -from gestures; but this is palpably wrong. In the Danish dialect -spoken in Sundeved, in southernmost Jutland, two tones are distinguished, -one high and one low (see articles by N. Andersen -and myself in <cite>Dania</cite>, vol. iv.). Now, these tones often serve to -keep words or forms of words apart that but for the tone, exactly -as in Chinese, would be perfect homophones. Thus <i>na</i> with the -low tone is ‘fool,’ but with the high tone it is either the plural -‘fools’ or else a verb ‘to cheat, hoax’; <i>ri</i> ‘ride’ is imperative -or infinitive according to the tone in which it is uttered; <i>jem</i> in -the low tone is ‘home’ and in the high ‘at home’; and so on -in a great many words. There is no need, however, in this language -to resort to gestures to explain these tonic differences: the low -tone is found in words originally monosyllabic (compare standard -Danish <i lang="da" xml:lang="da">nar</i>, <i lang="da" xml:lang="da">rid</i>, <i lang="da" xml:lang="da">hjem</i>), and the high tone in words originally -dissyllabic (compare Danish <i lang="da" xml:lang="da">narre</i>, <i lang="da" xml:lang="da">ride</i>, <i lang="da" xml:lang="da">hjemme</i>). The tones belonging -formerly to two syllables are now condensed on one syllable. -Although, of course, Chinese tones cannot in every respect be -paralleled with Scandinavian ones, we may provisionally conjecture -that the above-mentioned pairs of Chinese words were -formerly distinguished by derivative syllables or flexional endings -(see below, p. <a href="#Page_373">373</a>) which have now disappeared without leaving -any traces behind them except in the tones. This hypothesis -is perhaps rendered more probable by what seems to be an established -fact—that one of the tones has arisen through the dropping -of final stopped consonants (<i>p</i>, <i>t</i>, <i>k</i>).</p> - -<p>However this may be, the death-blow was given to the dogma -of the primitiveness of Chinese speech by Ernst Kuhn’s lecture -<cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Ueber Herkunft und Sprache der Transgangetischen Völker</cite> (Munich, -1883). He compares Chinese with the surrounding languages of -Tibet, Burmah and Siam, which are certainly related to Chinese -and have essentially the same structure; they are isolating, have -no flexion, and word order is their chief grammatical instrument. -But the laws of word order prove to be different in these several -languages, and Kuhn draws the incontrovertible conclusion that -it is impossible that any one of these laws of word position should -have been the original one; for that would imply that the other -nations have changed it without the least reason and at a risk -of terrible confusion. The only likely explanation is that these -differences are the outcome of a former state of greater freedom. -But if the ancestral speech had a free word order, to be at all -intelligible it must have been possessed of other grammatical -appliances than are now found in the derived tongues; in other -words, it must have indicated the relations of words to each other -by something like our derivatives or flexions.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_372" id="Page_372">[372]</a></span></p> - -<p>To the result thus established by Kuhn, that Chinese cannot -have had a fixed word order from the beginning, we seem also -to be led if we ask the question, Is primitive man likely to have -arranged his words in this way? A Chinese sentence, according -to Gabelentz (Spr 426), is arranged with the same logical precision -as the direction on an English envelope, where the most -specific word is placed first, and each subsequent word is like a -box comprising all that precedes—only that a Chinaman would -reverse the order, beginning with the most general word and then -in due order specializing. Now, is it probable that primitive man, -that unkempt, savage being, who did not yet deserve the proud -generic name of <i>homo sapiens</i>, but would be better termed, if not -<i>homo insipiens</i>, at best <i>homo incipiens</i>—is it probable that this -<i>urmensch</i>, who was little better than an <i>unmensch</i>, should have -been able at once to arrange his words, or, what amounts to the -same thing, his thoughts, in such a perfect order? I incline to -believe rather that logical, orderly thinking and speaking have -only been attained by mankind after a long and troublesome -struggle, and that the grammatical expedient of a fixed word -order has come to Chinese as to European languages through -a gradual development in which other, less logical and more -material grammatical appliances have in course of time been -given up.</p> - -<p>We have thus arrived at a conception of Chinese which is <i>toto -cælo</i> removed from the view formerly current. The Chinese language -can no longer be adduced in support of the hypothesis that -our Aryan languages, or all human languages, started at first as -a grammarless speech consisting of monosyllabic root-words.</p> - - -<h4><a id="XIX_5"></a>XIX.—§ 5. Recent Investigations.</h4> - -<p>I have reprinted the above sketch of Chinese, with a few very -insignificant verbal changes, as I wrote it about thirty years ago, -because I think that the main reasoning is just as valid now as -then, and because everything I have since then read about this -interesting language has only confirmed the opinion I ventured -to express after what was certainly a very insufficient study. -Chinese pronunciation, including its tones, may now be studied -in two excellent books, dealing with two different dialects—Daniel -Jones and Kwing Tong Woo, <cite>A Cantonese Phonetic Reader</cite>, London, -1912, and Bernhard Karlgren, <cite>A Mandarin Phonetic Reader in -the Pekinese Dialect</cite>, Upsala, Leipzig and Paris, 1917 (<span lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Archives -d’Études Orientales</span>, vol. 13). Karlgren is also the author of -<cite lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Études sur la Phonologie Chinoise</cite> (ib. vol. 15, 1915-19), in which -he deals with the history of Chinese sounds and the reconstruction<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_373" id="Page_373">[373]</a></span> -of the old pronunciation in a thoroughly scholarly manner on the -basis of an intimate knowledge of spoken and written Chinese, -and in <i lang="sv" xml:lang="sv">Ordet och pennan i mittens rike</i> (Stockholm, 1918), he has -given a masterly popular sketch of the structure of the Chinese -language and its system of writing.</p> - -<p>Of the greatest importance for our purposes is the same -scholar’s recent brilliant discovery of a real case distinction in -the oldest Chinese. In classical Chinese there are four pronouns -of the first person (I, we) which have always been considered as -absolutely synonymous. But Karlgren shows that the two of -them which occur as the usual forms in Confucius’s conversations -are so far from being used indiscriminately that one is nearly -always a nominative and the other an objective case; the exceptions -are not numerous and are easily explained. The present -Mandarin pronunciation of the first is [u], of the second either -[uo] or [ŋo]. But if we go back to the sixth century of our -era we are able with certainty to say that the pronunciation of -the former was [ŋuo], and of the latter [ŋa]. This, then, constitutes -a real declension. Now, in the second person Karlgren is -also able to point out a distinction of two pronouns, though not -quite so clearly marked as in the first person, the objective showing -here a greater tendency to encroach on the nominative (Karlgren -here ingeniously adduces the parallel from our languages that -the first person has retained the suppletive system <i>ego: me</i>, while -the second uses the same stem <i>tu: te</i>). The oldest Chinese thus -has the following case flexion:</p> - - -<div class="center"> -<table class="left" border="0" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" summary=""> -<tr><td></td><td>1st Per.</td><td>2nd Per.</td></tr> -<tr><td>Nom.</td><td>ŋuo</td><td>nźiwo</td></tr> -<tr><td>Obj.</td><td>ŋa</td><td>nźia</td></tr> -</table></div> -<p>(See “<span lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Le Proto-chinois, langue flexionnelle</span>,” <cite lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Journal Asiatique</cite>, -1920, 205 ff.).<a name="FNanchor_91_91" id="FNanchor_91_91"></a><a href="#Footnote_91_91" class="fnanchor">[91]</a></p> - - -<h4>XIX.—§ 6. Roots Again.</h4> - -<p>To return to roots. The influence of Indian grammar on -European linguists with regard to the theory of roots extended -also to the meanings assigned to roots, which were all of them<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_374" id="Page_374">[374]</a></span> -of verbal character, and nearly always highly general or abstract, -such as ‘breathe, move, be sharp or quick, blow, go,’ etc. The -impossibility of imagining anybody expressing himself by means -of a language consisting exclusively of such abstracts embarrassed -people much less than one would expect: Chinese, of course, has -plenty of words for concrete objects.</p> - -<p>The usual assumption was that there was one definite root -period in which all the roots were created, and after which this -form of activity ceased. But Whitney demurred to this (M 36), -saying that E. <i>preach</i> and <i>cost</i> may be considered new roots, though -ultimately coming from Lat. <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">præ-dicare</i> and <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">con-stare</i>: these -old compounds are felt as units, “reducing to the semblance of -roots elements that are really derivative or compound.” As -Whitney goes no further than to establish the <em>semblance</em> of new -roots, he might be taken as an adherent rather than as an opponent -of the theory he objects to. But, as a matter of fact, new words -<em>are</em> created in modern languages, and if they form the basis of -derived words, we may really speak of new roots (<i>pun—punning</i>, -<i>punster</i>; <i>fun—funny</i>; etc.). Why not say that we have a French -root <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">roul</i> in <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">rouler</i>, <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">roulement</i>, <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">roulage</i>, <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">roulier</i>, <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">rouleau</i>, <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">roulette</i>, -<i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">roulis</i>? This only becomes unjustifiable if we think that the -establishment of this root gives us the ultimate explanation of -these words; for then the linguistic historian steps in with the -objection that the words have been formed, not from a root, but -from a real word, which is not even in itself a primary word, but -a derivative, Lat. <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">rotula</i>, a diminutive of <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">rota</i> ‘wheel.’ (I take -this example from Bréal M 407). To the popular instinct <i>sorrow</i> -and <i>sorry</i> are undoubtedly related to one another, and we may -say that they contain a root <i>sorr-</i>; but a thousand years ago -they had nothing to do with one another, and belonged to different -roots: OE. <i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">sorg</i> ‘care’ and <i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">sārig</i> ‘wounded, afflicted.’ If all -traces of Latin and Greek were lost, a linguist would have no -more scruples about connecting <i>scene</i> with <i>see</i> than most illiterate -Englishmen have now. Who will vouch that many Aryan roots -may not have originated at various times through similar processes -as these new roots <i>preach</i>, <i>cost</i>, <i>roul</i>, <i>sorr</i>, <i>see</i>?</p> - -<p>The proper definition of a root seems to be: what is common -to a certain number of words felt by the popular instinct of the -speakers as etymologically belonging together. In this sense we -may of course speak of roots at any stage of any language, and -not only at a hypothetical initial stage. In some cases these -roots may be used as separate words (E. <i>preach</i>, <i>fun</i>, etc., Fr. -<i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">roul</i> = what is spelt <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">roule</i>, <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">roules</i>, <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">roulent</i>); in other cases this is -impossible (Lat. <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">am</i> in <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">amo</i>, <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">amor</i>, <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">amicus</i>; E. <i>sorr</i>); in many -cases because the common element cannot, for phonetic reasons,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_375" id="Page_375">[375]</a></span> -be easily pronounced, as when E. <i>drink, drank, drunk</i> or <i>sit, sat, -seat, set</i> are naturally felt to belong together, though it is impossible -to state the root except in some formula like <i>dr.nk</i>, <i>s.t</i>, where the -dot stands for some vowel. Similar considerations may be adduced -with regard to the consonants if we want to establish what is felt -to be common in <i>give</i> and <i>gift</i> (<i>gi</i> + labiodental spirant) or in <i>speak</i> -and <i>speech</i>, etc.; but this need not detain us here.</p> - -<p>In my view, then, the root is something real and important, -though not always tangible. And as its form is not always easy -to state or pronounce, so must its meaning, as a rule, be somewhat -vague and indeterminate, for what is common to several ideas -must of course be more general and abstract than either of the -more special ideas thus connected; it is also natural that it will -often be necessary to state the signification of a root in terms -of verbal ideas, for these are more general and abstract than -nominal ideas. But roots thus conceived belong to any and all -periods, and we must cease to speak of the earliest period of -human speech as ‘the root period.’</p> - - -<h4>XIX.—§ 7. The Agglutination Theory.</h4> - -<p>According to the received theory (see above, § <a href="#XIX_1">1</a>) some of the -roots became gradually attached to other roots and lost their -independence, so as to become finally formatives fused with the -root. This theory, generally called the agglutination theory, -contains a good deal of truth; but we can only accept it with -three important provisos, namely, first, that there has never been -one definite period in which those languages which are now -flexional were wholly agglutinative, the process of fusion being -liable to occur at any time; second, that the component parts -which become formatives are not at first roots, but real words; -and third, that this process is not the only one by which formatives -may develop: it may be called the rectilinear process, but -by the side of that we have also more circuitous courses, which -are no less important in the life of languages for being less -obvious.</p> - -<p>In the process of coalescence or integration there are many -possible stages, which may be denominated figuratively by such -expressions as that two words are placed together (that is—in non-figurative -language—pronounced after one another), tied together, -knit together, glued together (‘agglutinated’), soldered together, -welded together, fused together or amalgamated. What is really -the most important part of the process is the degree in which one -of the components loses its independence, phonetically and -semantically.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_376" id="Page_376">[376]</a></span></p> - -<p>As ‘agglutination’ is thus only one intermediate stage in -a continuous process, it would be better to have another name -for the whole theory of the origin of formatives than ‘the agglutination -theory,’ and I propose therefore to use the term ‘coalescence -theory.’ The usual name also fixes the attention too -exclusively on the so-called agglutinative languages, and if we -take the formatives of such a language as Turkish, as in <i lang="tr" xml:lang="tr">sev-mek</i> -‘to love,’ <i lang="tr" xml:lang="tr">sev-il-mek</i> ‘to be loved,’ <i lang="tr" xml:lang="tr">sev-dir-mek</i> ‘to cause to love,’ -<i lang="tr" xml:lang="tr">sev-dir-il-mek</i> ‘to be made to love,’ <i lang="tr" xml:lang="tr">sev-ish-mek</i> ‘to love one -another,’ <i lang="tr" xml:lang="tr">sev-ish-dir-il-mek</i> ‘to be made to love one another’—who -will vouch that these formatives were all of them originally -independent words? Those who are most competent to have -an opinion on the matter seem nowadays inclined to doubt it -and to reject much of what was current in the description of these -languages given by the earlier scholars; see, especially, the interesting -final chapter of V. Grønbech, <cite lang="da" xml:lang="da">Forstudier til tyrkisk lydhistorie</cite> -(København, 1902).</p> - - -<h4>XIX.—§ 8. Coalescence.</h4> - -<p>The various degrees of coalescence, and the coexistence at the -same linguistic period of these various degrees, may be illustrated -by the old example, English <i>un-tru-th-ful-ly</i>, and by German <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">un-be-stimm-bar-keit</i>. -Let us look a little at each of these formatives. -The only one that can still be used as an independent word is -<i>ful</i>(l). From the collocation in ‘I have my hand full of peas’ -the transition is easy to ‘a handful of peas,’ where the accentual -subordination of <i>full</i> to <i>hand</i> paves the way for the combination -becoming one word instead of two: this is not accomplished till -it becomes possible to put the plural sign at the end (<i>handfuls</i>, -thus also <i>basketfuls</i> and others), while in less familiar combinations -the <i>s</i> is still placed in the middle (<i>bucketsful</i>, two <i>donkeysful</i> of -children, see MEG ii. 2. 42). In these substantives <i>-ful</i> keeps its -full vowel [u]. But in adjectival compounds, such as <i>peaceful</i>, -<i>awful</i>, there is a colloquial pronunciation with obscured or omitted -vowel [-fəl, -fl], in which the phonetic connexion with the full word -is thus weakened; the semantic connexion, too, is loosened when -it becomes possible to form such words as <i>dreadful</i>, <i>bashful</i>, in which -it is not possible to use the definition ‘full of ...’ Here, then, -the transition from a word to a derivative suffix is complete.</p> - -<p>English <i>-hood</i>, <i>-head</i> in <i>childhood</i>, <i>maidenhead</i> also is originally an -independent word, found in OE. and ME. in the form <i>had</i>, meaning -‘state, condition,’ Gothic <i>haidus</i>. In German it has two forms, -<i>-heit</i>, as in <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">freiheit</i>, and <i>-keit</i>, whose <i>k</i> was at first the final sound of -the adjective in <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">ewigkeit</i>, MHG. <i lang="gmh" xml:lang="gmh">ewecheit</i>, but was later felt as part<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_377" id="Page_377">[377]</a></span> -of the suffix and then transferred to cases in which the stem had -no <i>k</i>, as in <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">tapferkeit</i>, <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">ehrbarkeit</i>.</p> - -<p>The suffix <i>-ly</i> is from <i>lik</i>, which was a substantive meaning -‘form, appearance, body’ (‘a dead body’ in Dan. <i lang="da" xml:lang="da">lig</i>, E. <i>lich</i> in -<i>lichgate</i>); <i>manlik</i> thus is ‘having the form or appearance of a -man’; the adjective <i>like</i> originally was <i>ge-lic</i> ‘having the same -appearance with’ (as in Lat. <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">con-form-is</i>). In compounds <i>-lik</i> -was shortened into <i>-ly</i>: in some cases we still have competing forms -like <i>gentlemanlike</i> and <i>gentlemanly</i>. The ending was, and is still, -used extensively in adjectives; if it is now also used to turn -adjectives into adverbs, as in <i>truthful-ly</i>, <i>luxurious-ly</i>, this is a -consequence of the two OE. forms, adj. <i>-lic</i> and adv. <i>-lice</i>, having -phonetically fallen together.</p> - -<p>It may perhaps be doubtful whether the G. suffix <i>-bar</i> (OHG. -<i>-bari</i>, OE. <i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">bære</i>) was ever really an independent word, but its -connexion with the verb <i>beran</i>, E. <i>bear</i>, cannot be doubted: -<i lang="de" xml:lang="de">fruchtbar</i> is what bears fruit (cf. OE. <i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">æppelbære</i> ‘bearing apples’), -but the connexion was later loosened, and such adjectives as <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">ehrbar</i>, -<i lang="de" xml:lang="de">kostbar</i>, <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">offenbar</i> have little or nothing left of the original meaning -of the suffix. The two prefixes in our examples, <i>un-</i> and <i>be-</i>, -are differentiated forms of the old negative <i>ne</i> and the preposition -<i>by</i>, and the only affix in our two long words which is thus left -unexplained is <i>-th</i>, which makes <i>true</i> into <i>truth</i> and is found also -in <i>length</i>, <i>health</i>, etc.</p> - - -<h4><a id="XIX_9"></a>XIX.—§ 9. Flexional Endings.</h4> - -<p>There can be no doubt, therefore, that some at any rate of our -suffixes and prefixes go back to independent words which have been -more or less weakened to become derivative formatives. But does -the same hold good with those endings which we are accustomed -to term flexional endings? The answer certainly must be in the -affirmative with regard to <em>some</em> endings.</p> - -<p>Thus the Scandinavian passive originates in a coalescence of -the active verb and the pronoun <i>sik</i>: Old Norse <i lang="non" xml:lang="non">(þeir) finna sik</i> -(‘they find themselves’ or ‘each other’), gradually becomes one -word <i>(þeir) finnask</i>, later <i>finnast</i>, <i>finnaz</i>, Swedish <i lang="sv" xml:lang="sv">(de) finnas</i>, Dan. -<i lang="da" xml:lang="da">(de) findes</i> ‘they are found.’ In Old Icelandic the pronoun is -still to some extent felt as such, though formally an indistinguishable -part of the verb; thus combinations like the following are very -frequent: <i>Bolli kvaz þessu ráða vilja</i> = <i>kvað sik vilja</i>; “<span lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Bolli dixit -se velle</span>: B. said that he would have his own way” (Laxd. 55). In -Danish a distinction can sometimes be made between a reflexive -and a purely passive employment: <i lang="da" xml:lang="da">de slås</i> with a short vowel is -‘they fight (one another),’ but with a long vowel ‘they are beaten.’<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_378" id="Page_378">[378]</a></span> -A similar coalescence is taking place in Russian, where <i>sja</i> ‘himself’ -(myself, etc.) dwindles down to a suffixed <i>s</i>: <i>kazalos</i> ‘it showed itself, -turned out.’</p> - -<p>A similar case is the Romanic future: It. <i lang="it" xml:lang="it">finiro</i>, Sp. <i lang="es" xml:lang="es">finire</i>, -Fr. <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">finirai</i>, from <i>finire habeo</i> (<i>finir ho</i>, etc.), originally ‘I have to -finish.’ Before the coalescence was complete, it was possible to -insert a pronoun, Old Sp. <i lang="osp" xml:lang="osp">cantar-te-hé</i> ‘I shall sing to you.’</p> - -<p>A third case in point is the suffixed definite article, if we are -allowed to consider that as a kind of flexion: Old Norse <i lang="non" xml:lang="non">mannenn</i> -(<i lang="non" xml:lang="non">manninn</i>) accusative ‘the man,’ <i lang="non" xml:lang="non">landet</i> (<i lang="non" xml:lang="non">landit</i>) ‘the land’; Dan. -<i lang="da" xml:lang="da">manden</i>, <i lang="da" xml:lang="da">landet</i>, from <i>mann</i>, <i>land</i> + the demonstrative pronoun <i>enn</i>, -neuter <i>et</i>. Rumanian <i lang="ro" xml:lang="ro">domnul</i> ‘the lord,’ from Lat. <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">dominu(m) -illu(m)</i>, is another example.</p> - - -<h4>XIX.—§ 10. Validity of the Theory.</h4> - -<p>Now, does this kind of explanation admit of universal application—in -other words, were all our derivative affixes and flexional -endings originally independent words before they were ‘glued’ -to or fused with the main word? This has been the prevalent, one -might almost say the orthodox, view of all the leading linguists, -who may be mustered in formidable array in defence of the -agglutination theory.<a name="FNanchor_92_92" id="FNanchor_92_92"></a><a href="#Footnote_92_92" class="fnanchor">[92]</a></p> - -<p>Against the universality of this origin for formatives I adduced -in my former work (1894, p. 66 f., cf. <cite>Kasus</cite>, 1891, p. 36) four -reasons, which I shall here restate in a different order and in a -fuller form.</p> - -<p>(1) Nothing can be proved with regard to the ultimate genesis -of flexion in general from the adduced examples, for in all of them -the elements were already fully flexional before the coalescence -(cf. ON. <i lang="non" xml:lang="non">finnask</i>, <i lang="non" xml:lang="non">fannsk</i>; It. <i lang="it" xml:lang="it">finirò</i>, <i lang="it" xml:lang="it">finirai</i>, <i lang="it" xml:lang="it">finira</i>; ON. <i lang="non" xml:lang="non">maðrenn</i>, -<i lang="non" xml:lang="non">mannenn</i>, <i lang="non" xml:lang="non">mansens</i>, etc.). What they show, then, is really nothing -but the growth of new flexional formations on an old flexional -soil, and it might be imagined that the fusion would not have taken -place, or not so completely, if the minds of the speakers had not -been already prepared to accept formations of this character. -I do not, however, attach much importance to this argument, and -turn to those that are more cogent.</p> - -<p>(2) The number of actual forms proved beyond a doubt to<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_379" id="Page_379">[379]</a></span> -have originated through coalescence is comparatively small. It is -true that not a few derivative syllables were originally independent; -still, if we compare them with the number of those for which no -such origin has been proved or even proposed, we find that the -proportion is very small indeed. In the list of English suffixes -enumerated in Sweet’s <cite>Grammar</cite>, only eleven can be traced back -to independent words, while 74 are not thus explicable. Anyone -going through the countless suffixes enumerated in the second -volume of Brugmann’s <cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Vergleichende Grammatik</cite> will, I think, -be struck with the impossibility of any great number of them being -traced back to words in the same way as <i>hood</i>, etc., above: their -forms and, still more, their vague spheres of meaning, and on the -whole their manner of application, distinctly speak against such -an origin.</p> - -<p>As to real flexional endings traceable to words, their number -is even comparatively smaller than that of derivative suffixes; -the three or four instances named above are everywhere appealed -to, but are there so many more than these? And are they -numerous enough to justify so general an assertion? My impression -is that the basis for the induction is very far from sufficient.</p> - -<p>(3) This argument is strengthened when we are able to point -out instances in which, as a matter of fact, flexional endings have -arisen in a way that is totally opposed to the agglutinative, which -then must renounce all claims to be the <em>only</em> possible way for a -language to arrive at flexional formatives. See below (§ <a href="#XIX_13">13</a>) on -Secretion.</p> - -<p>(4) Assuming the theory to be true, we should expect much -greater regularity, both in formal (morphological) and in semantic -(syntactic) respect than we actually find in the old Aryan languages; -for if one definite element was added to signify one definite modification -of the idea, we see no reason why it should not have been -added to all words in the same way. As a matter of fact, the -Romanic future, the Scandinavian passive voice and definite article -present much greater regularity than is found in the flexion of -nouns and verbs in old Aryan.</p> - - -<h4>XIX.—§ 11. Irregularity Original.</h4> - -<p>It will be objected that the irregularity which we find in these -old languages is of later growth, and that, in fact, flexion, as -Schuchardt says, is “<span lang="de" xml:lang="de">anomal gewordene agglutination</span>.” Whitney -said that “each suffix has its distinct meaning and office, and is -applied in a whole class of analogous words” (L. 254), and in reading -Schleicher’s <cite>Compendium</cite> one gains the impression that the old -Aryan sounds and forms were like a regiment of well-trained soldiers<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_380" id="Page_380">[380]</a></span> -marching along in the best military style, while all irregularities -were the result of later decay in each language separately. But -the trend of the whole scientific development of the last fifty years -has been in the direction of demonstrating more and more irregularity -in the original forms: where formerly only one ending was -assumed for the same case, etc., now several are assumed. (See, e.g., -Walde in Streitberg’s <cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Gesch.</cite>, 2. 194, Thumb, ib. 2. 69.) And as -with the forms, so also with the meanings and applications of the -forms. Madvig as early as 1857 (p. 27. Kl 202) had seen that the -signification of the grammatical forms must originally have been -extremely vague and fluctuating, but most scholars went on imagining -that each case, each tense, each mood had originally stood for -something quite settled and definite, until gradually the progress of -linguistics made away with that conception point by point. In place -of the belief that the original Aryan verb had a definite system of -tense forms, it is now generally assumed that different ‘aspects’ -(‘<span lang="de" xml:lang="de">aktionsarten</span>’), somewhat like those of Slav verbs, were indicated, -and that the notion of ‘time’ differences was only afterwards -developed out of the notion of aspect: but if we compare the -divisions and definitions of these aspects given by various scholars, -we see how essentially vague this notion is; instead of being a -model system of nice logical distinctions, the original condition -must rather have been one in which such notions as duration, -completion, result, beginning, repetition were indistinctly found -as germs, from which such ideas as perfect and imperfect, past -and present, were finally evolved with greater and greater clearness.</p> - -<p>Similar remarks apply to moods. All attempts at finding -out, deductively or inductively, the fundamental notion (<span lang="de" xml:lang="de">grundbegriff</span>) -attached to such a mood as the subjunctive have failed: -it is impossible to establish one original, sharply circumscribed -sphere of usage, from which all the various, partly conflicting, -usages in the actually existing languages can be derived. The -usual theory is that there existed one true subjunctive, characterized -by long thematic vowels <i>-ē-</i>, <i>-ā-</i>, <i>-ō-</i>, and distinct from that -an optative, characterized by a formative <i>-iē-</i>: <i>-ī-</i>,<a name="FNanchor_93_93" id="FNanchor_93_93"></a><a href="#Footnote_93_93" class="fnanchor">[93]</a> and that these -two were fused in Latin. But, as Oertel and Morris have shown -in their valuable article “An Examination of the Theories regarding -the Nature and Origin of Indo-European Inflection” (<cite>Harvard -Studies in Classical Philol.</cite> XVI, 1905) it is probably safer to assume -for the Indo-European period substantial identity of meaning<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_381" id="Page_381">[381]</a></span> -in the modal formatives <i>iē</i>: <i>ī</i> and the long thematic vowels <i>-ē-</i>, <i>-ā-</i>, -<i>-ō-</i>, which were then continued undifferentiated in Latin, while on -the one hand the Germanic branch has practically discarded the -forms with long thematic vowel and confined itself to the <i>i</i> suffix, -and on the other hand two branches, Greek and Indo-Iranic, -have availed themselves of the formal difference and separated a -‘subjunctive’ and an ‘optative’ mood.</p> - - -<h4>XIX.—§ 12. Coalescence Theory dropped.</h4> - -<p>In the historical part I have already mentioned some instances -of coalescence explanations of Aryan forms which have been abandoned -by most scholars, such as the theory that the <i>r</i> of the Latin -passive is a disguised <i>se</i>, which would agree very well with the -Scandinavian passive, but falls to the ground when one remembers -that corresponding forms are found in Keltic, where the transition -from <i>s</i> to <i>r</i> is otherwise unknown: these forms are now believed -to be related to some <i>r</i> forms found in Sanskrit, but there not -possessed of any passive signification, this latter being thus a -comparatively late acquisition of Keltic and Italic: these two -branches turning an existing, non-meaning consonant to excellent -use in their flexional system and generalizing it in the new -application.<a name="FNanchor_94_94" id="FNanchor_94_94"></a><a href="#Footnote_94_94" class="fnanchor">[94]</a></p> - -<p>The explanation of the ‘weak’ Gothonic preterit from a -coalescence of <i>did</i> (<i>loved</i> = <i>love did</i>) was long one of the strongholds -of the agglutination theory, Bopp’s original collocation of -these forms with other forms which could not be thus explained -(see above 51) having passed into oblivion. Now we have Collitz’s -comprehensive book <cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Das schwache Präteritum</cite>, 1912, in which the -formative consonant is shown to have been Aryan <i>t</i>, and the close -correspondence not only with the passive participle, but also with -the verbal nouns in <i>-ti</i> is duly emphasized.</p> - -<p>The impossibility of explaining the Latin perfect in <i>-vi</i> from -composition with <i>fui</i> has been demonstrated by Merguet (see Walde -in Streitberg’s <cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Gesch.</cite>, 2. 220). Instead of this rectilinear explanation, -scholars now incline to assume an intricate play of various -analogical influences starting from a pre-ethnic perfect in <i>w</i> in -isolated instances.</p> - -<p>Many have explained the case ending <i>-s</i> as a coalesced demonstrative -pronoun <i>sa</i> or, as it is now given, <i>so</i>; the difficulty that the -same <i>s</i> denotes now the nominative and now the genitive was got over<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_382" id="Page_382">[382]</a></span> -by Curtius (C 12) by the assumption that <i>sa</i> was added at two distinct -periods, and that each period made a different use of the addition, -though Curtius does not tell us how one or the other function could -be evolved from such a pronoun. The latest attempt at explanation, -which reaches me as I am writing this chapter, is by Hermann -Möller (KZ 49. 219): according to him the common Aryan and -Semitic nominative ended in <i>o</i> and the genitive in <i>e</i>, but to this was -added in the masculine, and more rarely in the feminine, the pronoun -<i>s</i> as a definite article, so that the primitive form corresponding to -Lat. <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">lupus</i> meant ‘the wolf’ and <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">lupu</i> ‘(a) wolf’; later the <i>s</i>-less -form was given up, and <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">lupus</i> came to be used for both ‘the wolf’ -and ‘wolf’ (similarly presumably in the genitive, if we translate -the presumed original forms into Latin <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">lupis</i> ‘the wolf’s’ and -<i lang="la" xml:lang="la">lupi</i> ‘(a) wolf’s,’ later <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">lupi</i> in both functions). In Semitic, inversely, -an element <i>m</i>, corresponding to the Aryan accusative ending, -was added as an <i>in</i>definite article, the <i>m</i>-less form thus becoming -definite, but in the oldest Babylonian-Assyrian the distinction has -been given up, and the form in <i>m</i> is (like the Latin form in <i>s</i>) used -both definitely and indefinitely. Ingenious as these constructions -are, the whole theory seems to me highly artificial, and it is difficult -to imagine that both Aryans and Semites, after having evolved -such a valuable distinction as that between ‘the wolf’ and ‘a -wolf,’ expressed by simple means, should have wilfully given it -up—to evolve it again in a later period.<a name="FNanchor_95_95" id="FNanchor_95_95"></a><a href="#Footnote_95_95" class="fnanchor">[95]</a> Fortunately one is -allowed to confess one’s ignorance of the origin of the case -endings <i>s</i> and <i>m</i>, but if I were on pain of death to choose -between Möller’s hypothesis and the suggestion thrown out by -Humboldt (Versch 129), that the light (high-pitched) <i>s</i> symbolized -the living (personal) and active (the subject), and the dark (low-pitched) -<i>m</i> the lifeless (neutral) and passive (the object), I should -certainly prefer the latter explanation.</p> - -<p>Hirt (GDS 37) also thinks that the <i>s</i> found in Aryan cases -is an originally independent word, only he thinks that this <i>se</i>, -<i>so</i> was not originally a demonstrative pronoun, but the particle, -which with the extension <i>i</i> is found in Gothic <i>sai</i> ‘<span lang="la" xml:lang="la">ecce</span>,’ and as -it can thus be compared with the particle <i>c</i> in Lat. <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">hic</i>, it is clear -that it might be added in all cases—and as a matter of fact Hirt -finds it in six different cases in the singular and in all cases in the -plural except the genitive. Hirt makes no attempt at explaining -how these various case-forms have come to acquire the signification -(function) with which we find them in the oldest documents; -“the <i>s</i> element had nothing to do with the denotation of any case, -number or gender, and only after it had been added to some cases<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_383" id="Page_383">[383]</a></span> -and not to others could it come to be distinctive of cases” (p. 39). -In other words, his explanation explains just nothing at all. The -same is true with regard to the ‘particles’ <i>om</i> or <i>em</i>, <i>e</i>, <i>o</i>, <i>i</i>, which -he thinks were added in other cases, and when he ends (p. 42) -by saying that “this must be sufficient to give a glimpse of the -way in which Aryan flexion originated,” the only thing we have -really seen is the haphazard way in which this flexion is formed, -and the impossibility at present of arriving at a fully satisfactory -explanation of these things. I should especially demur to the two -suppositions underlying Hirt’s theory that Aryan had at one -period a completely flexionless structure, and that the same sound -when occurring in various cases must have had the same origin: -it seems much more probable to me that the <i>s</i> of the nominative -and the <i>s</i> of the genitive were not at first identical.<a name="FNanchor_96_96" id="FNanchor_96_96"></a><a href="#Footnote_96_96" class="fnanchor">[96]</a></p> - -<p>That item of the coalescence theory which probably appealed -most to the fancy of scholars and laymen alike was the explanation -of the personal endings in the verbs from the personal pronouns: -we have an <i>m</i> in the first person of the <i>mi</i>-verbs (<i>esmi</i>) and in the -pronoun <i>me</i>, etc., and we have a <i>t</i> in the third person (<i>esti</i>) and -in a third-person pronoun or demonstrative (<i>to</i>); it is, therefore, -quite natural to think that <i>esmi</i> is simply the root <i>es</i> ‘to be’ + the -pronoun <i>mi</i> ‘I,’ and <i>esti</i> <i>es</i> + the other pronoun, and to extend -this view to the other persons. And yet not even this has been -allowed to stand unchallenged by later disrespectful linguists, -headed by A. H. Sayce (Techmer’s <cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Zeitschr. f. allg. Sprwiss.</cite> i. 22) -and Hirt. As a matter of fact, the theory is based exclusively -on the above-mentioned correspondence in the first and third -persons singular, while the dual and plural endings do not at all -agree with the corresponding personal pronouns and the endings -of the second person can only be compared with the pronoun -through the employment of phonological tricks unworthy of a -scientific linguist. Even in the first person the correspondence -is not complete, for besides <i>-mi</i> we have other endings: <i>-m</i>, which -cannot be very well considered a shortened <i>-mi</i> (and which agrees,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_384" id="Page_384">[384]</a></span> -as Sayce remarks, much more closely with the accusative ending -of nouns), <i>-o</i> and <i>-a</i>, neither of which can be explained from any -known pronoun. There is thus nothing for it except to say, as -Brugmann does (KG § 770): “The origin of the personal endings -is not clear”; cf. also Misteli 47: “The relations between personal -endings and the independent personal pronouns must be much -more evident to justify this view.... The Aryan language -offers direct evidence against the assumption that a sentence has -been thus drawn together, because it uses in the verbal forms of -the first and third person sg. pronominal stems which are otherwise -employed only as objects, and, moreover, would here place the -subject after the predicate, though in sentences it observes the -opposite order.” Meillet expresses himself very categorically -(<cite lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Bulletin de la Soc. de Ling.</cite> 1911, 143): “Scarcely any linguist -who has studied Aryan languages would venture to affirm that -*<i>-mi</i> of the type Gr. <i>fēmi</i> is an old personal pronoun.”</p> - -<p>The impression left on us by all these cases is that many -of the earlier explanations by agglutination have proved unsatisfactory, -and that linguists are nowadays inclined either to leave -the forms entirely unexplained or else to admit less rectilinear -developments, in which we see the speakers of the old languages -groping tentatively after means of expression and finding them -only by devious and circuitous courses. It is, of course, difficult -to classify such explanations, and the agglutination or coalescence -theory has to be supplemented by various other kinds of -explanation; but I think one of these, which has not received -its legitimate share of attention, is important and distinctive -enough to have its own name, and I propose to term it the -‘secretion’ theory.</p> - - -<h4><a id="XIX_13"></a>XIX.—§ 13. Secretion.</h4> - -<p>By secretion I understand the phenomenon that one integral -portion of a word comes to acquire a grammatical signification -which it had not at first, and is then felt as something added to -the word itself. Secretion thus is a consequence of a ‘metanalysis’ -(above, Ch. X § <a href="#X_2">2</a>); it shows its full force when the element -thus secreted comes to be added to other words not originally -possessing this element.</p> - -<p>A clear instance is offered in the history of some English possessive -pronouns. In Old English <i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">min</i> and <i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">þin</i> the <i>n</i> is kept throughout -as part and parcel of the words themselves, the other cases -having such forms as <i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">mine</i>, <i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">minum</i>, <i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">minre</i>, exactly as in German -<i lang="de" xml:lang="de">mein</i>, <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">meine</i>, <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">meinem</i>, <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">meiner</i>, etc. But in Middle English the -endings were gradually dropped, and <i lang="enm" xml:lang="enm">min</i> and <i lang="enm" xml:lang="enm">þin</i> for a short time<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_385" id="Page_385">[385]</a></span> -became the only forms. Soon, however, <i>n</i> was dropped before -substantives beginning with a consonant, but was retained in -other positions (<i>my</i> father—<i>mine</i> uncle, it is <i>mine</i>); then the -former form was transferred also to those cases in which the pronoun -was used (as an adjunct) before words beginning with vowels -(<i>my</i> father, <i>my</i> uncle—it is <i>mine</i>). The distinction between <i>my</i> -and <i>mine</i>, <i>thy</i> and <i>thine</i>, which was originally a purely phonetic -one, exactly like that between <i>a</i> and <i>an</i> (<i>a</i> father, <i>an</i> uncle), gradually -acquired a functional value, and now serves to distinguish an -adjunct from a principal (or, to use the terms of some grammars, -a conjoint from an absolute form); <i>my</i> came to be looked upon as -the proper form, while the <i>n</i> of <i>mine</i> was felt as an ending serving -to indicate the function as a principal word. That this is really -the instinctive feeling of the people is shown by the fact that in -dialectal and vulgar speech the same <i>n</i> is added to <i>his</i>, <i>her</i>, <i>your</i> -and <i>their</i>, to form the new pronouns <i>hisn</i>, <i>hern</i>, <i>yourn</i>, <i>theirn</i>: -“He that prigs what isn’t hisn, when he’s cotch’d, is sent to -prison. She that prigs what isn’t hern, At the treadmill takes -a turn.”</p> - -<p>Another instance of secretion is <i>-en</i> as a plural ending in E. -<i>oxen</i>, G. <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">ochsen</i>, etc. Here originally <i>n</i> belonged to the word in -all cases and all numbers, just as much as the preceding <i>s</i>; <i>ox</i> -was an <i>n</i> stem in the same way as, for instance, Lat. <span lang="la" xml:lang="la">(homo), -homi<i>n</i>em, homi<i>n</i>is</span>, etc., or Gr. kuō<i>n</i>, ku<i>n</i>a, ku<i>n</i>os, etc., are <i>n</i> stems. -In Gothic <i>n</i> is found in most of the cases of similar <i>n</i> stems. -In OE. the nom. is <i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">oxa</i>, the other cases in the sg. <i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">oxan</i>, pl. <i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">oxan</i> -(<i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">oxen</i>), <i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">oxnum</i>, <i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">oxena</i>, but in ME. the <i>n</i>-less form is found throughout -the singular (gen. analogically <i>oxes</i>), and the plural only kept <i>-n</i>. -Thus also a great many other words, e.g. (I give the plural forms) -<i lang="enm" xml:lang="enm">apen</i>, <i lang="enm" xml:lang="enm">haren</i>, <i lang="enm" xml:lang="enm">sterren</i> (stars), <i lang="enm" xml:lang="enm">tungen</i>, <i lang="enm" xml:lang="enm">siden</i>, <i lang="enm" xml:lang="enm">eyen</i>, which all of them -belonged to the <i>n</i> declension in OE. When <i>-en</i> had thus become -established as a plural sign, it was added analogically to words -which were not originally <i>n</i> stems, e.g. ME. <i lang="enm" xml:lang="enm">caren</i>, <i lang="enm" xml:lang="enm">synnen</i>, <i lang="enm" xml:lang="enm">treen</i> -(OE. <i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">cara</i>, <i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">synna</i>, <i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">treow</i>), and this ending even seemed for some -time destined to be the most usual plural ending in the South -of England, until it was finally supplanted by <i>-s</i>, which had been the -prevalent ending in the North; <i lang="enm" xml:lang="enm">eyen</i>, <i lang="enm" xml:lang="enm">foen</i>, <i lang="enm" xml:lang="enm">shoen</i> were for a time in -competition with <i>eyes</i>, <i>foes</i>, <i>shoes</i>, and now <i>-n</i> is only found in <i>oxen</i> -(and <i>children</i>). In German to-day things are very much as they -were in Southern ME.: <i>-en</i> is kept extensively in the old <i>n</i> stems -and is added to some words which had formerly other endings, e.g. -<i lang="de" xml:lang="de">hirten</i>, <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">soldaten</i>, <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">thaten</i>. The result is that now plurality is indicated -by an ending which had formerly no such function (which, indeed, -had no function at all); for if we look upon the actual language, -<i>oxen</i> (G. <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">ochsen</i>) is = <i>ox</i> (<i>ochs</i>) singular + the plural ending <i>-en</i>;<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_386" id="Page_386">[386]</a></span> -only we must not on any account imagine that the form was -originally thus welded together (agglutinated)—and if in G. <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">soldaten</i> -we may speak of <i>-en</i> being glued on to <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">soldat</i>, this ending is not, -and has never been, an independent word, but is an originally -insignificative part secreted by other words.</p> - -<p>A closely similar case is the plural ending <i>-er</i>. The consonant -originally was <i>s</i>, as seen, for instance, in the Gr. and Lat. nom. -<i>genos</i>, <i>genus</i>, gen. Gr. <i>gene(s)os</i>, <i>genous</i>, Lat. <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">generis</i> for older -<i lang="la" xml:lang="la">genesis</i>. In Gothonic languages <i>s</i>, in accordance with a regular -sound shift in this case, became <i>r</i> (through <i>z</i>) whenever it was -retained, but in the nom. sg. it was dropped, and thus we have -in OE. sg. <i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">lamb</i>, <i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">lambe</i>, <i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">lambes</i>, but in the pl. <i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">lambru</i>, <i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">lambrum</i>, -<i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">lambra</i>. In English only few words show traces of this flexion, -thus OE. <i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">cild</i>, pl. <i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">cildru</i>, ME. <i lang="enm" xml:lang="enm">child</i>, <i lang="enm" xml:lang="enm">childer</i>, whence, with an added -<i>-en</i>, our modern <i>children</i>. But in German the class had much more -vitality, and we have not only words belonging to it of old, like -<i lang="de" xml:lang="de">lamm</i>, pl. <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">lämmer</i>, <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">rind</i>, <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">rinder</i>, but also gradually more and more -words which originally belonged to other classes, but adopted this -ending after it had become a real sign of the plural number, thus -<i lang="de" xml:lang="de">wörter</i>, <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">bücher</i>.</p> - -<p>There is one trait that should be noticed as highly characteristic -of these instances of secretion, that is, that the occurrence of the -endings originating in this way seems from the first regulated -by the purest accident, seen from the point of view of the speakers: -they are found in some words, but not in others, whereas the -endings treated of under the heading Coalescence are added much -more uniformly to the whole of the vocabulary. But as a similarly -irregular or arbitrary distribution is met with in the case -of nearly all flexional endings in the oldest stages of languages -belonging to our family of speech, the probability is that most -of those endings which it is impossible for us to trace back to -their first beginnings have originated through secretion or similar -processes, rather than through coalescence of independent words -or roots.</p> - - -<h4>XIX.—§ 14. Extension of Suffixes.</h4> - -<p>A special subdivision of secretion comprises those cases in -which a suffix takes over some sound or sounds from words to which -it was added. Clear instances are found in French, where in -consequence of the mutescence of a final consonant some suffixes -to the popular instinct must seem to begin with a consonant, -though originally this did not belong to the suffix. Thus <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">laitier</i>, -at first formed from <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">lait</i> + <i>ier</i>, now came to be apprehended as -= <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">lai(t)</i> + <i>tier</i>, and <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">cabaretier</i> as <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">cabare(t)</i> + <i>tier</i>, and the new<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_387" id="Page_387">[387]</a></span> -suffix was then used to form such new words as <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bijoutier</i>, <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">ferblantier</i>, -<i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">cafetier</i> and others. In the same way we have <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">tabatière</i>, where -we should expect <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">tabaquière</i>, and the predilection for the extended -form of the suffix is evidently strengthened by the syllable division -in frequent formations like <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">ren-tier</i>, <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">por-tier</i>, <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">por-tière</i>, <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">charpen-tier</i>. -In old Gothonic we have similar extensions of suffixes, when instead -of <i>-ing</i> we get <i>-ling</i>, starting from words like OHG. <i lang="goh" xml:lang="goh">ediling</i> from <i>edili</i>, -ON. <i lang="non" xml:lang="non">vesling</i> from <i>vesall</i>, OE. <i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">lytling</i> from <i>lytel</i>, etc. Consequently -we have in English quite a number of words with the extended -ending: <i>duckling</i>, <i>gosling</i>, <i>hireling</i>, <i>underling</i>, etc. In Gothic -some words formed with <i>-assus</i>, such as <i>þiudin-assus</i> ‘kingdom,’ -were apprehended as formed with <i>-nassus</i>, and in all the related -languages the suffix is only known with the initial <i>n</i>; thus in E. -<i>-ness</i>: <i>hardness</i>, <i>happiness</i>, <i>eagerness</i>, etc.; G. <i>-keit</i> with its <i>k</i> from -adjectives in <i>-ic</i> has already been mentioned (376). From <i>criticism</i>, -<i>Scotticism</i>, we have <i>witti-cism</i>, and Milton has <i>witticaster</i> on the -analogy of <i>criticaster</i>, where the suffix of course is <i>-aster</i>, as in -<i>poetaster</i>. Instead of <i>-ist</i> we also find in some cases <i>-nist</i>: -<i>tobacconist</i>, <i>lutenist</i> (cf. <i>botan-ist</i>, <i>mechan-ist</i>).</p> - -<p>To form a new word it is often sufficient that some existing -word is felt in a vague way to be made up of something + an ending, -the latter being subsequently added on to another word. In -Fr. <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">mérovingien</i> the <i>v</i> of course is legitimate, as the adjective is -derived from Mérovée, Merowig, but this word was made the starting-point -for the word designating the succeeding dynasty: <i>carlovingien</i>, -where <i>v</i> is simply taken over as part of the suffix; nowadays historians -try to be more ‘correct’ and prefer the adjective <i>carolingien</i>, -which was unknown to Littré. <i>Oligarchy</i> is <i>olig</i> + <i>archy</i>, but for -the opposite notion the word <i>poligarchy</i> or <i>polygarchy</i> was framed -from <i>poly</i> and the last two syllables of <i>oli-garchy</i>, and though now -scholars have made <i>polyarchy</i> the usual form, the word with the -intrusive <i>g</i> was the common form two hundred years ago in English, -and corresponding forms are found in French, Spanish and other -languages. <i>Judgmatical</i> is made on the pattern of <i>dogmatical</i>, -though there the stem is <i>dogmat-</i>. In jocular German <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">schwachmatikus</i> -‘valetudinarian,’ we have the same suffix with a -different colouring, taken from <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">rheumatikus</i> (thus also Dan. -<i lang="da" xml:lang="da">svagmatiker</i>). Swift does not hesitate to speak of a <i>sextumvirate</i>, -which suggests <i>triumvirate</i> better than <i>sexvirate</i> would have done; -and Bernard Shaw once writes “his equipage (or autopage)”—evidently -starting from the popular, but erroneous, belief that -<i>equipage</i> is derived from Lat. <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">equus</i> and then dividing the word -<i>equi</i> + <i>page</i>. Cf. <i>Scillonian</i> from <i>Scilly</i> on account of <i>Devonian</i> -as if this were <i>Dev</i> + <i>onian</i> instead of <i>Devon</i> + <i>ian</i>.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_388" id="Page_388">[388]</a></span></p> - - -<h4>XIX.—§ 15. Tainting of Suffixes.</h4> - -<p>It will be seen that in some of these instances the suffix has -appropriated to itself not only part of the sound of the stem, but -also part of its signification. This is seen very clearly in the case -of <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">chandelier</i>, in French formed from <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">chandelle</i> ‘candle’ with the -suffix <i>-ier</i>, of rather vague signification, ‘anything connected with, -or having to do with’; in English the word is used for a hanging -branched frame to hold a number of lights; consequently a similar -apparatus for gas-burners was denominated <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">gaselier</i> (<i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">gasalier</i>, -<i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">gasolier</i>), and with the introduction of electricity the formation -has even been extended to <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">electrolier</i>. <i>Vegetarian</i> is from the stem -<i>veget-</i> with added <i>-ari-an</i>, which ending has no special connexion -with the notion of eating or food, but recently we have seen the -new words <i>fruitarian</i> and <i>nutarian</i>, meaning one whose food consists -(exclusively or chiefly) in fruits and nuts. Cf. <i>solemncholy</i>, which -according to Payne is in use in Alabama, framed evidently on -<i>melancholy</i>, analyzed in a way not approved by Greek scholars. -The whole ending of <i>septentrionalis</i> (from the name of the constellation -<i>Septem triones</i>, the seven oxen) is used to form the opposite: -<i>meridi-onalis</i>.</p> - -<p>A similar case of ‘tainting’ is found in recent English. The -NED, in the article on the suffix <i>-eer</i>, remarks that “in many of -the words so formed there is a more or less contemptuous implication,” -but does not explain this, and has not remarked that it is -found only in words ending in <i>-teer</i> (from words in <i>-t</i>). I think -this contemptuous implication starts from <i>garreteer</i> and <i>crotcheteer</i> -(perhaps also <i>pamphleteer</i> and <i>privateer</i>); after these were formed -the disparaging words <i>sonneteer</i>, <i>pulpiteer</i>. During the war (1916, -I think) the additional word <i>profiteer</i><a name="FNanchor_97_97" id="FNanchor_97_97"></a><a href="#Footnote_97_97" class="fnanchor">[97]</a> came into use, but did not -find its way into the dictionaries till 1919 (Cassell’s). And only -the other day I read in an American publication a new word of -the same calibre: “Against <i>patrioteering</i>, against fraud and violence -... Mr. Mencken has always nobly and bravely contended.”</p> - - -<h4>XIX.—§ 16. The Classifying Instinct.</h4> - -<p>Man is a classifying animal: in one sense it may be said that the -whole process of speaking is nothing but distributing phenomena,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_389" id="Page_389">[389]</a></span> -of which no two are alike in every respect, into different classes on -the strength of perceived similarities and dissimilarities. In the -name-giving process we witness the same ineradicable and very useful -tendency to see likenesses and to express similarity in the phenomena -through similarity in name. Professor Hempl told me that -one of his little daughters, when they had a black kitten which -was called <i>Nig</i> (short for Nigger), immediately christened a gray -kitten <i>Grig</i> and a brown one <i>Brownig</i>. Here we see the genesis -of a suffix through a natural process, which has little in common -with the gradual weakening of an originally independent word, -as in <i>-hood</i> and the other instances mentioned above. In children’s -speech similar instances are not unfrequent (cf. Ch. VII § <a href="#VII_5">5</a>); -Meringer L 148 mentions a child of 1.7 who had the following -forms: <i>augn</i>, <i>ogn</i>, <i>agn</i>, for ‘<span lang="de" xml:lang="de">augen, ohren, haare</span>.’ How many words -formed or transformed in the same way must we require in order -to speak of a suffix? Shall we recognize one in Romanic <i>leve</i>, -<i>greve</i> (cf. Fr. <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">grief</i>), which took the place of <i>leve</i>, <i>grave</i>? Here, -as Schuchardt aptly remarks, it was not only the opposite signification, -but also the fact that the words were frequently uttered -shortly after one another, that made one word influence the other.</p> - -<p>The classifying instinct often manifests itself in bringing words -together in form which have something in common as regards -signification. In this way we have smaller classes and larger -classes, and sometimes it is impossible for us to say in what way -the likeness in form has come about: we can only state the fact that -at a given time the words in question have a more or less close -resemblance. But in other cases it is easy to see which word of -the group has influenced the others or some other. In the examples -I am about to give, I have been more concerned to bring together -words that exhibit the classifying tendency than to try to find out -the impetus which directed the formation of the several groups.</p> - -<p>In OE. we have some names of animals in <i>-gga</i>: <i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">frogga</i>, <i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">stagga</i>, -<i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">docga</i>, <i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">wicga</i>, now <i>frog</i>, <i>stag</i>, <i>dog</i>, <i>wig</i>. <i>Savour</i> and <i>flavour</i> go -together, the latter (OFr. <i lang="fro" xml:lang="fro">flaur</i>) having its <i>v</i> from the former. -<i>Groin</i>, I suppose, has its diphthong from <i>loin</i>; the older form was -<i>grine</i>, <i>grynd(e)</i>. <i>Claw</i>, <i>paw</i> (earlier <i>powe</i>, OFr. <i lang="fro" xml:lang="fro">pol</i>). <i>Rim</i>, <i>brim</i>. -<i>Hook</i>, <i>nook</i>. <i>Gruff</i>, <i>rough</i> (<i>tough</i>, <i>bluff</i>, <i>huff</i>—<i>miff</i>, <i>tiff</i>, <i>whiff</i>). <i>Fleer</i>, -<i>leer</i>, <i>jeer</i>. <i>Twig</i>, <i>sprig</i>. <i>Munch</i>, <i>crunch</i> (<i>lunch</i>). <i>Without uttering -or muttering a word.</i> <i>The trees were lopped and topped.</i> In old -Gothonic the word for ‘eye’ has got its vowel from the word -for ‘ear,’ with which it was frequently collocated: <i>augo(n)</i>, -<i>auso(n)</i>, but in the modern languages the two words have again -been separated in their phonetic development. In French I -suspect that popular instinct will class the words <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">air</i>, <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">terre</i>, <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">mer</i> -together as names of what used to be termed the ‘elements,’ in<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_390" id="Page_390">[390]</a></span> -spite of the different spelling and origin of the sounds. In Russian -<i>kogot’</i> ‘griffe’ (claw), <i>nogot’</i> ‘ongle’ (fingernail), and <i>lokot’</i> -‘coude’ (elbow), three names of parts of the body, go together in -flexion and accent (Boyer et Speranski, <cite lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Manuel de la l. russe</cite> 33). -So do in Latin <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">culex</i> ‘gnat’ and <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">pulex</i> ‘flea.’ <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">Atrox</i>, <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">ferox</i>. A -great many examples have been collected by M. Bloomfield, “On -Adaptation of Suffixes in Congeneric Classes of Substantives” -(<cite>Am. Journal of Philol.</cite> XII, 1891), from which I take a few. A -considerable number of designations of parts of the body were -formed with heteroclitic declension as <i>r-n</i> stems (cf. above, XVIII -§ 2): ‘liver,’ Gr. <i>hēpar</i>, <i>hēpatos</i>, ‘udder,’ Gr. <i>outhar</i>, <i>outhatos</i>, -‘thigh,’ Lat. <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">femur</i>, <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">feminis</i>, further Aryan names for blood, wing, -viscera, excrement, etc. Other designations of parts of the body -were partly assimilated to this class, having also <i>n</i> stems in the -oblique cases, though their nominative was formed in a different way. -Words for ‘right’ and ‘left’ frequently influence one another -and adopt the same ending, and so do opposites generally: -Bloomfield explains the <i>t</i> in the Gothonic word corresponding to -E. <i>white</i>, where from Sanskr. we should expect <i>th</i>, <i>çveta</i>, as due to -the word for ‘black’; Goth. <i>hweits</i>, <i>swarts</i>, ON. <i lang="non" xml:lang="non">hvítr</i>, <i lang="non" xml:lang="non">svartr</i>, etc. -A great many names of birds and other animals appear with the -same ending, Gr. <i>glaux</i> ‘owl,’ <i>kokkux</i> ‘cuckoo,’ <i>korax</i> ‘crow,’ <i>ortux</i> -‘quail,’ <i>aix</i> ‘goat,’ <i>alopex</i> ‘fox,’ <i>bombux</i> ‘silkworm,’ <i>lunx</i> ‘lynx’ and -many others, also some plant-names. Names for winter, summer, -day, evening, etc., also to a great extent form groups. In a subsequent -article (in IF vi. 66 ff.) Bloomfield pursues the same line of -thought and explains likenesses in various words of related signification, -in direct opposition to the current explanation through -added root-determinatives, as due to blendings (cf. above, Ch. XVII -§ <a href="#XVII_6">6</a>). In Latin the inchoative value of the verbs in <i>-esco</i> is due -to the accidentally inherent continuous character of a few verbs -of the class: <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">adolesco</i>, <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">senesco</i>, <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">cresco</i>; but the same suffix is also -found in the oldest words for ‘asking, wishing, searching,’ retained -in E. <i>ask</i>, <i>wish</i>, G. <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">forschen</i>, which thus become a small -group linked together by form and meaning alike.</p> - - -<h4>XIX.—§ 17. Character of Suffixes.</h4> - -<p>There seems undoubtedly to be something accidental or haphazard -in most of these transferences of sounds from one word -to another through which groups of phonetically and semantically -similar words are created; the process works unsystematically, -or rather, it consists in spasmodic efforts at regularizing something -which is from the start utterly unsystematic. But where conditions -are favourable, i.e. where the notional connexion is patent<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_391" id="Page_391">[391]</a></span> -and the phonetic element is such that it can easily be added to many -words, the group will tend constantly to grow larger within the -natural boundaries given by the common resemblance in signification.</p> - -<p>I have no doubt that the vast majority of our formatives, such -as suffixes and flexional endings, have arisen in this way through -transference of some part, which at first was unmeaning in itself, -from one word to another in which it had originally no business, -and then to another and another, taking as it were a certain colouring -from the words in which it is found, and gradually acquiring a more -or less independent signification or function of its own. In long -words, such as were probably frequent in primitive speech, and which -were to the minds of the speakers as unanalyzable as <i>marmalade</i> -or <i>crocodile</i> is to Englishmen nowadays, it would be perhaps most -natural to keep the beginning unchanged and to modify the final -syllable or syllables to bring about conformity with some word -with which it was associated; hence the prevalence of suffixes in -our languages, hence also the less systematic character of these -suffixes as compared with the prefixes, most of which have originated -in independent words, such as adverbs. What is from the -merely phonetic point of view the ‘same’ suffix, in different languages -may have the greatest variety of meaning, sometimes no -discernible meaning at all, and it is in many cases utterly impossible -to find out why in one particular language it can be used with one -stem and not with another. Anyone going through the collections -in Brugmann’s great <cite>Grammar</cite> will be struck with this purely -accidental character of the use of most of the suffixes—a fact -which would be simply unthinkable if each of them had originally -one definite, well-determined signification, but which is easy to -account for on the hypothesis here adopted. And then many of -them are not added to ready-made words or ‘roots,’ but form -one indivisible whole with the initial part of the word; cf., for -instance, the suffix <i>-le</i> in English <i>squabble</i>, <i>struggle</i>, <i>wriggle</i>, <i>babble</i>, -<i>mumble</i>, <i>bustle</i>, etc.</p> - - -<h4>XIX.—§ 18. Brugmann’s Theory of Gender.</h4> - -<p>As I have said, man is a classifying animal, and in his language -tends to express outwardly class distinctions which he feels more -or less vaguely. One of the most important of these class divisions, -and at the same time one of the most difficult to explain, is that of -the three ‘genders’ in our Aryan languages. If we are to believe -Brugmann, we have here a case of what I have in this work termed -secretion. In his well-known paper, “<span lang="de" xml:lang="de">Das Nominalgeschlecht -in den indogermanischen Sprachen</span>” (in Techmer’s <cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Zs. f. allgem. -Sprachwissensch.</cite> 4. 100 ff., cf. also his reply to Roethe’s criticism,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_392" id="Page_392">[392]</a></span> -PBB 15. 522) he puts the question: How did it come about that -the old Aryans attached a definite gender (or sex, <span lang="de" xml:lang="de">geschlecht</span>) to -words meaning foot, head, house, town, Gr. <i>pous</i>, for instance, -being masculine, <i>kephalē</i> feminine, <i>oikos</i> masculine, and <i>polis</i> -feminine? The generally accepted explanation, according to which -the imagination of mankind looked upon lifeless things as living -beings, is, Brugmann says, unsatisfactory; the masculine and -feminine of grammatical gender are merely unmeaning forms and -have nothing to do with the ideas of masculinity and femininity; -for even where there exists a natural difference of sex, language -often employs only one gender. So in German we have <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">der hase</i>, -<i lang="de" xml:lang="de">die maus</i>, and <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">der weibliche hase</i> is not felt to be self-contradictory. -Again, in the history of languages we often find words which change -their gender exclusively on account of their form. Thus, in German, -many words in <i>-e</i>, such as <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">traube</i>, <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">niere</i>, <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">wade</i>, which were formerly -masculine, have now become feminine, because the great majority -of substantives in <i>-e</i> are feminine (<i lang="de" xml:lang="de">erde</i>, <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">ehre</i>, <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">farbe</i>, etc.). Nothing -accordingly hinders us from supposing that grammatical gender -originally had nothing at all to do with natural sex. The question, -therefore, according to Brugmann, is essentially reduced to this: -How did it come to pass that the suffix <i>-a</i> was used to designate -female beings? At first it had no connexion with femininity, witness -Lat. <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">aqua</i> ‘water’ and hundreds of other words; but among -the old words with that ending there happened to be some denoting -females: <i>mama</i> ‘mother’ and <i>gena</i> ‘woman’ (compare E. <i>quean</i>, -<i>queen</i>). Now, in the history of some suffixes we see that, without -any regard to their original etymological signification, they may -adopt something of the radical meaning of the words to which -they are added, and transfer that meaning to new formations. In -this way <i>mama</i> and <i>gena</i> became the starting-point for analogical -formations, as if the idea of female was denoted by the ending, -and new words were formed, e.g. Lat. <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">dea</i> ‘goddess’ from <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">deus</i> -‘god,’ <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">equa</i> ‘mare’ from <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">equus</i> ‘horse,’ etc. The suffix <i>-iē-</i> or <i>-ī-</i> -probably came to denote feminine sex by a similar process, possibly -from Skr. <i>strī</i> ‘woman,’ which may have given a fem. *<i>wḷqī</i> ‘she-wolf’ -to *<i>wḷqos</i> ‘wolf.’ The above is a summary of Brugmann’s -reasoning; it may interest the reader to know that a closely similar -point of view had, several years previously, been taken by a far-seeing -scholar in respect to a totally different language, namely -Hottentot, where, according to Bleek, CG 2. 118-22, 292-9, a -class division which had originally nothing to do with sex has -been employed to distinguish natural sex. I transcribe a few of -Bleek’s remarks: “The apparent sex-denoting character which -the classification of the nouns now has in the Hottentot language -was evidently imparted to it after a division of the nouns into<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_393" id="Page_393">[393]</a></span> -classes<a name="FNanchor_98_98" id="FNanchor_98_98"></a><a href="#Footnote_98_98" class="fnanchor">[98]</a> had taken place. It probably arose, in the first instance, -from the possibly accidental circumstance that the nouns indicating -(respectively) man and woman were formed with different -derivative suffixes, and consequently belonged to different classes -(or genders) of nouns, and that these suffixes thus began to indicate -the distinction of sex in nouns where it could be distinguished” -(p. 122). “To assume, for example, that the suffix of the m. sg. -(<i>-p</i>) had originally the meaning of ‘man,’ or the fem. sg. (<i>-s</i>) -that of ‘woman,’ would in no way explain the peculiar division -of the nouns into classes as we find it in Hottentot, and would be -opposed to all that is probable regarding the etymology of these -suffixes, and also to the fact that so many nouns are included in -the sex-denoting classes to which the distinction of sex can only -be applied by a great effort.... If the word for ‘man’ were -formed with one suffix (<i>-p</i>), and the word indicating ‘woman’ -(be it accidentally or not) by another (<i>-s</i>), then other nouns would -be formed with the same suffixes, in analogy with these, until -the majority of the nouns of each sex were formed with certain -suffixes which would thus assume a sex-denoting character” (p. 298).</p> - -<p>Brugmann’s view on Aryan gender has not been unchallenged. -The weakest points in his arguments are, of course, that there are -so few old naturally feminine words in <i>-a</i> and <i>-i</i> to take as starting-points -for such a thoroughgoing modification of the grammatical -system, and that Brugmann was unable to give any striking explanation -of the concord of adjectives and pronouns with words -that had not these endings, but which were nevertheless treated as -masculines and feminines respectively. It would lead us too far -here to give any minute account of the discussion which arose on -these points;<a name="FNanchor_99_99" id="FNanchor_99_99"></a><a href="#Footnote_99_99" class="fnanchor">[99]</a> one of the most valuable contributions seems to -me Jacobi’s suggestion (<cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Compositum u. Nebensatz</cite>, 1897, 115 ff.) -that the origin of grammatical gender is not to be sought in the -noun, but in the pronoun (he finds a parallel in the Dravidian -languages)—but even he does not find a fully satisfactory explanation, -and the Aryan gender distinction reaches back to so remote -an antiquity, thousands of years before any literary tradition, that -we shall most probably never be able to fathom all its mysteries. -Of late years less attention has been given to the problem of the -feminine, which presented itself to Brugmann, than to the distinction -between two classes, one of which was characterized by the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_394" id="Page_394">[394]</a></span> -use of a nominative in <i>-s</i>, which is now looked upon as a ‘transitive-active’ -case, and the other by no ending or by an ending -<i>-m</i>, which is the same as was used as the accusative in the first -class (an ‘intransitive-passive’ case), and an attempt has been -made to see in the distinction something analogous to the division -found in Algonkin languages between a class of ‘living’ and -another of ‘lifeless’ things—though these two terms are not to be -taken in the strictly scientific sense, for primitive men do not reason -in the same way as we do, but ascribe or deny ‘life’ to things -according to criteria which we have great difficulty in apprehending. -This would mean a twofold division into one class comprising the -historical masculines and feminines, and another comprising the -neuters.</p> - -<p>As to the feminine, we saw two old endings characterizing that -gender, <i>a</i> and <i>i</i>. With regard to the latter, I venture to throw -out the suggestion that it is connected with diminutive suffixes -containing that vowel in various languages: on the whole, the -sound [i] has a natural affinity with the notion of small, slight, -insignificant and weak (see Ch. XX § <a href="#XX_8">8</a>). In some African languages -we find two classes, one comprising men and big things, and the -other women and small things (Meinhof, <cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Die Sprachen der Hamiten</cite> -23), and there is nothing unnatural in the supposition that similar -views may have obtained with our ancestors. This would naturally -account for Skr. <i>vṛk-ī</i> ‘she-wolf’ (orig. little wolf, ‘wolfy’) from -Skr. <i>vṛkas</i>, <i>napt-ī</i>, Lat. <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">neptis</i>, G. <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">nichte</i>, Skr. <i>dēv-ī</i>, ‘goddess,’ etc. -But the feminine <i>-a</i> is to me just as enigmatic as, say, the <i>d</i> of -the old ablative.</p> - - -<h4>XIX.—§ 19. Final Considerations.</h4> - -<p>The ending <i>-a</i> serves to denote not only female beings, but -also abstracts, and if in later usage it is also applied to males, as -in Latin <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">nauta</i> ‘sailor,’ <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">auriga</i> ‘charioteer,’ this is only a derived -use of the abstracts denoting an activity, sailoring, driving, etc., -just as G. <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">die wache</i>, besides the activity of watching, comes to -mean the man on guard, or as <i>justice</i> (Sp. <i lang="es" xml:lang="es">el justicia</i>) comes to mean -‘judge.’ The original sense of <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">Antonius collega fuit Ciceronis</i> -was ‘A. was the co-election of C.’ (Osthoff, <cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Verbum in d. Nominal-compos.</cite>, -1878, 263 ff., Delbrück, <cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Synt. Forsch.</cite> 4. 6).</p> - -<p>The same <i>-a</i> is finally used as the plural ending of most neuters, -but, as is now universally admitted (see especially Johannes Schmidt, -<cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Die Pluralbildungen der indogerm. Neutra</cite>, 1889), the ending here -was originally neither neuter nor plural, but, on the contrary, -feminine and singular. The forms in <i>-a</i> are properly collective -formations like those found, for instance, in Lat. <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">opera</i>, gen. <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">operæ</i>,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_395" id="Page_395">[395]</a></span> -‘work,’ comp. <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">opus</i> ‘(a piece of) work’; Lat. <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">terra</i> ‘earth,’ comp. -Oscan <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">terum</i> ‘plot of ground’; <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">pugna</i> ‘boxing, fight,’ comp. -<i lang="la" xml:lang="la">pugnus</i> ‘fist.’ This explains among other things the peculiar -syntactic phenomenon, which is found regularly in Greek and -sporadically in Sanskrit and other languages, that a neuter plural -subject takes the verb in the singular. Greek <i>toxa</i> is often used -in speaking of a single bow; and the Latin poetic use of <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">guttura</i>, -<i lang="la" xml:lang="la">colla</i>, <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">ora</i>, where only one person’s throat, neck or face is meant, -points similarly to a period of the past when these words did not -denote the plural. We can now see the reason of this <i>-a</i> being -in some cases also the plural sign of masculine substantives: -Lat. <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">loca</i> from <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">locus</i>, <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">joca</i> from <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">jocus</i>, etc.; Gr. <i>sita</i> from <i>sitos</i>. -Joh. Schmidt refers to similar plural formations in Arabic; and as -we have seen (Ch. XIX § <a href="#XIX_9">9</a>), the Bantu plural prefixes had probably -a similar origin. And we are thus constantly reminded that languages -must often make the most curious <i>détours</i> to arrive at a -grammatical expression for things which appear to us so self-evident -as the difference between he and she, or that between one and -more than one. Expressive simplicity in linguistic structure -is not a primitive, but a derived quality.</p> - - - -<div class="chapter"> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_396" id="Page_396">[396]</a></span></p> - - - - - -<h3 class="nobreak"><a name="CHAPTER_XX" id="CHAPTER_XX">CHAPTER XX</a><br /> - -<span class="larger">SOUND SYMBOLISM</span></h3> -</div> - -<div class="blockquot chaptersummary"> - -<p>§ 1. Sound and Sense. § 2. Instinctive Feeling. § 3. Direct Imitation. -§ 4. Originator of the Sound. § 5. Movement. § 6. Things and -Appearances. § 7. States of Mind. § 8. Size and Distance. § 9. -Length and Strength of Words and Sounds. § 10. General Considerations. -§ 11. Importance of Suggestiveness. § 12. Ancient and -Modern Times.</p></div> - - -<h4>XX.—§ 1. Sound and Sense.</h4> - -<p>The idea that there is a natural correspondence between sound -and sense, and that words acquire their contents and value through -a certain sound symbolism, has at all times been a favourite one -with linguistic dilettanti, the best-known examples being found -in Plato’s <cite>Kratylos</cite>. Greek and Latin grammarians indulge in -the wildest hypotheses to explain the natural origin of such and -such a word, as when Nigidius Figulus said that in pronouncing -<i lang="la" xml:lang="la">vos</i> one puts forward one’s lips and sends out breath in the direction -of the other person, while this is not the case with <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">nos</i>. With -these early writers, to make guesses at sound symbolism was the -only way to etymologize; no wonder, therefore, that we with -our historical methods and our wider range of knowledge find -most of their explanations ridiculous and absurd. But this does -not justify us in rejecting any idea of sound symbolism: <span lang="la" xml:lang="la">abusus -non tollit usum</span>!</p> - -<p>Humboldt (Versch 79) says that “language chooses to designate -objects by sounds which partly in themselves, partly in comparison -with others, produce on the ear an impression resembling the effect -of the object on the mind; thus <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">stehen</i>, <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">stätig</i>, <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">starr</i>, the impression -of firmness, Sanskrit <i>lī</i> ‘to melt, diverge,’ that of liquidity or -solution (<span lang="de" xml:lang="de">des zerfliessenden</span>).... In this way objects that -produce similar impressions are denoted by words with essentially -the same sounds, thus <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">wehen</i>, <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">wind</i>, <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">wolke</i>, <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">wirren</i>, <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">wunsch</i>, in all -of which the vacillating, wavering motion with its confused impression -on the senses is expressed through ... <i>w</i>.” Madvig’s -objection (1842, 13 = Kl 64) that we need only compare four of -the words Humboldt quotes with the corresponding words in the -very nearest sister-language, Danish <i lang="da" xml:lang="da">blæse</i>, <i lang="da" xml:lang="da">vind</i>, <i lang="da" xml:lang="da">sky</i>, <i lang="da" xml:lang="da">ønske</i>, to<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_397" id="Page_397">[397]</a></span> -see how wrong this is, seems to me a little cheap: Humboldt -himself expressly assumes that much of primitive sound symbolism -may have disappeared in course of time and warns us against -making this kind of explanation a ‘constitutive principle,’ -which would lead to great dangers (“<span lang="de" xml:lang="de">so setzt man sich grossen -gefahren aus und verfolgt einen in jeder rücksicht schlüpfrigen -pfad</span>”). Moreover <i lang="da" xml:lang="da">blæse</i> (E. <i>blow</i>, Lat. <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">flare</i>) is just as imitative -as <i>wind</i>, <i lang="da" xml:lang="da">vind</i>: no one of course would pretend that there was -only one way of expressing the same sense perception. Among -Humboldt’s examples <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">wolke</i> and <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">wunsch</i> are doubtful, but I do -not see that this affects the general truth of his contention that -there is something like sound symbolism in <em>some</em> words.</p> - -<p>Nyrop in his treatment of this question (Gr IV § 545 f.) repeats -Madvig’s objection that the same name can denote various objects, -that the same object can be called by different names, and that -the significations of words are constantly changing; further, that -the same group of sounds comes to mean different things according -to the language in which it occurs. He finally exclaims: “How -to explain [by means of sound symbolism] the difference in -signification between <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">murus</i>, <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">nurus</i>, <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">durus</i>, <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">purus</i>, etc.?”</p> - - -<h4>XX.—§ 2. Instinctive Feeling.</h4> - -<p>Yes, of course it would be absurd to maintain that all words -at all times in all languages had a signification corresponding -exactly to their sounds, each sound having a definite meaning -once for all. But is there really much more logic in the opposite -extreme, which denies any kind of sound symbolism<a name="FNanchor_100_100" id="FNanchor_100_100"></a><a href="#Footnote_100_100" class="fnanchor">[100]</a> (apart from -the small class of evident echoisms or ‘onomatopœia’) and sees -in our words only a collection of wholly accidental and irrational -associations of sound and meaning? It seems to me that the -conclusion in this case is as false as if you were to infer that because -on one occasion X told a lie, he therefore never tells the truth. -The correct conclusion would be: as he has told a lie once, we -cannot always trust him; we must be on our guard with him—but -sometimes he may tell the truth. Thus, also, sounds may in -some cases be symbolic of their sense, even if they are not so in -all words. If linguistic historians are averse to admitting sound -symbolism, this is a natural consequence of their being chiefly -occupied with words which have undergone regular changes in -sound and sense; and most of the words which form the -staple of linguistic books are outside the domain of sound -symbolism.</p> -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_398" id="Page_398">[398]</a></span></p> -<p>There is no denying, however, that there are words which we -feel instinctively to be adequate to express the ideas they stand -for, and others the sounds of which are felt to be more or less -incongruous with their signification. Future linguists will have -to find out in detail what domains of human thought admit, and -what domains do not admit, of congruous expression through -speech sounds, and further what sounds are suitable to express -such and such a notion, for though it is clear—to take only a few -examples—that there is little to choose between <i>apple</i> and <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">pomme</i>, -or between <i>window</i> and <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">fenster</i>, as there is no sound or sound group -that has any natural affinity with such thoroughly concrete and -composite ideas as those expressed by these words, yet on the -other hand everybody must feel that the word <i>roll</i>, <i>rouler</i>, <i>rulle</i>, -<i>rollen</i> is more adequate than the corresponding Russian word -<i>katat’</i>, <i>katit’</i>.</p> - -<p>It would be an interesting task to examine in detail and -systematically what ideas lend themselves to symbolic presentation -and what sounds are chosen for them in different languages. -That, however, could only be done on the basis of many more -examples than I can find space for in this work, and I shall, -therefore, only attempt to give a preliminary enumeration of the -most obvious classes, with a small fraction of the examples I have -collected.<a name="FNanchor_101_101" id="FNanchor_101_101"></a><a href="#Footnote_101_101" class="fnanchor">[101]</a></p> - - -<h4>XX.—§ 3. Direct Imitation.</h4> - -<p>The simplest case is the direct imitation of the sound, thus -<i>clink</i>, <i>clank</i>, <i>ting</i>, <i>tinkle</i> of various metallic sounds, <i>splash</i>, <i>bubble</i>, -<i>sizz</i>, <i>sizzle</i> of sounds produced by water, <i>bow-wow</i>, <i>bleat</i>, <i>roar</i> of -sounds produced by animals, and <i>snort</i>, <i>sneeze</i>, <i>snigger</i>, <i>smack</i>, -<i>whisper</i>, <i>grunt</i>, <i>grumble</i> of sounds produced by human beings. -Examples might easily be multiplied of such ‘echoisms’ or -‘onomatopœia’ proper. But, as our speech-organs are not -capable of giving a perfect imitation of all ‘unarticulated’ sounds, -the choice of speech-sounds is to a certain extent accidental, and -different nations have chosen different combinations, more or -less conventionalized, for the same sounds; thus <i>cock-a-doodle-doo</i>, -Dan. <i lang="da" xml:lang="da">kykeliky</i>, Sw. <i lang="sv" xml:lang="sv">kukeliku</i>, G. <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">kikeriki</i>, Fr. <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">coquelico</i>, for the sound -of a cock; and for <i>whisper</i>: Dan. <i lang="da" xml:lang="da">hviske</i>, ON. <i lang="non" xml:lang="non">kvisa</i>, G. <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">flüstern</i>, -Fr. <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">chuchoter</i>, Sp. <i lang="es" xml:lang="es">susurar</i>. The continuity of a sound is frequently -indicated by <i>l</i> or <i>r</i> after a stopped consonant: <i>rattle</i>, <i>rumble</i>, <i>jingle</i>, -<i>clatter</i>, <i>chatter</i>, <i>jabber</i>, etc.</p> -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_399" id="Page_399">[399]</a></span></p> - -<h4>XX.—§ 4. Originator of the Sound.</h4> - -<p>Next, the echoic word designates the being that produces the -sound, thus the birds <i>cuckoo</i> and <i>peeweet</i> (Dan. <i lang="da" xml:lang="da">vibe</i>, G. <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">kibitz</i>, -Fr. pop. <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">dix-huit</i>).</p> - -<p>A special subdivision of particular interest comprises those -names, or nicknames, which are sometimes popularly given to -nations from words continually occurring in their speech. Thus -the French used to call an Englishman a <i>god-damn</i> (<i>godon</i>), and in -China an English soldier is called <i>a-says</i> or <i>I-says</i>. In Java a -Frenchman is called <i>orang-deedong</i> (<i>orang</i> ‘man’), in America -<i>ding-dong</i>, and during the Napoleonic wars the French were called -in Spain <i>didones</i>, from <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">dis-donc</i>; another name for the same nation -is <i>wi-wi</i> (Australia), <i>man-a-wiwi</i> (in Beach-la-mar), or <i>oui-men</i> -(New Caledonia). In Eleonore Christine’s <cite lang="da" xml:lang="da">Jammersminde</cite> 83 I -read, “<span lang="de" xml:lang="de">Ich habe zwei <i>parle mi franço</i> gefangen</span>,” and correspondingly -Goldsmith writes (Globe ed. 624): “Damn the French, the -<i>parle vous</i>, and all that belongs to them. What makes the bread -rising? the <i>parle vous</i> that devour us.” In Rovigno the surrounding -Slavs are called <i>čuje</i> from their exclamation <i>čuje</i> ‘listen, -I say,’ and in Hungary German visitors are called <i lang="hu" xml:lang="hu">vigéc</i> (from -<i lang="de" xml:lang="de">wie geht’s?</i>), and customs officers <i lang="hu" xml:lang="hu">vartapiszli</i> (from <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">wart’ a bissl</i>). -Round Panama everything native is called <i>spiggoty</i>, because in the -early days the Panamanians, when addressed, used to reply, “No -spiggoty [speak] Inglis.” In Yokohama an English or American -sailor is called <i>Damuraïsu H’to</i> from ‘Damn your eyes’ and -Japanese H’to ‘people.’<a name="FNanchor_102_102" id="FNanchor_102_102"></a><a href="#Footnote_102_102" class="fnanchor">[102]</a></p> - - -<h4>XX.—§ 5. Movement.</h4> - -<p>Thirdly, as sound is always produced by some movement and -is nothing but the impression which that movement makes on the -ear, it is quite natural that the movement itself may be expressed -by the word for its sound: the two are, in fact, inseparable. Note, -for instance, such verbs as <i>bubble</i>, <i>splash</i>, <i>clash</i>, <i>crack</i>, <i>peck</i>. Human -actions may therefore be denoted by such words as to <i>bang</i> the -door, or (with slighter sounds) to <i>tap</i> or <i>rap</i> at a door. Hence -also the substantives a <i>tap</i> or a <i>rap</i> for the action, but the substantive -may also come to stand for the implement, as when from -the verb to <i>hack</i>, ‘to cut, chop off, break up hard earth,’ we have -the noun <i>hack</i>, ‘a mattock or large pick.’</p> - -<p>Then we have words expressive of such movements as are not -to the same extent characterized by loud sounds; thus a great<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_400" id="Page_400">[400]</a></span> -many words beginning with <i>l</i>-combinations, <i>fl-</i>: <i>flow</i>, <i>flag</i> (Dan. -<i lang="da" xml:lang="da">flagre</i>), <i>flake</i>, <i>flutter</i>, <i>flicker</i>, <i>fling</i>, <i>flit</i>, <i>flurry</i>, <i>flirt</i>; <i>sl-</i>: <i>slide</i>, <i>slip</i>, -<i>slive</i>; <i>gl-</i>: <i>glide</i>. Hence adjectives like <i>fleet</i>, <i>slippery</i>, <i>glib</i>. Sound -and sight may have been originally combined in such expressions -for an uncertain walk as <i>totter</i>, <i>dodder</i>, dialectical <i>teeter</i>, <i>titter</i>, <i>dither</i>, -but in cases of this kind the audible element may be wanting, and -the word may come to be felt as symbolic of the movement as such. -This is also the case with many expressions for the sudden, rapid -movement by which we take hold of something; as a short vowel, -suddenly interrupted by a stopped consonant, serves to express -the sound produced by a very rapid striking movement (<i>pat</i>, <i>tap</i>, -<i>knock</i>, etc.), similar sound combinations occur frequently for the -more or less noiseless seizing of a thing (with the teeth or with -the hand): <i>snap</i>, <i>snack</i>, <i>snatch</i>, <i>catch</i>, Fr. <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">happer</i>, <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">attraper</i>, <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">gripper</i>, -E. <i>grip</i>, Dan. <i lang="da" xml:lang="da">hapse</i>, <i lang="da" xml:lang="da">nappe</i>, Lat. <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">capio</i>, Gr. <i>kaptō</i>, Armenian <i>kap</i> -‘I seize,’ Turk <i lang="tr" xml:lang="tr">kapmak</i> (<i lang="tr" xml:lang="tr">mak</i> infin. ending), etc. (I shall only -mention one derivative meaning that may develop from this group: -E. <i>snack</i> ‘a hurried meal,’ in Swift’s time called a <i>snap</i> (<cite>Journ. -to Stella</cite> 270); cf. G. <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">schnapps</i>, Dan. <i lang="da" xml:lang="da">snaps</i> ‘glass of spirits.’) -E. <i>chase</i> and <i>catch</i> are both derived from two dialectically different -French forms, ultimately going back to the same late Latin verb -<i lang="la" xml:lang="la">captiare</i>, but it is no mere accident that it was the form ‘catch’ -that acquired the meaning ‘to seize,’ not found in French, for it -naturally associated itself with <i>snatch</i>, and especially with the -now obsolete verb <i>latch</i> ‘to seize.’</p> - -<p>There is also a natural connexion between action and sound -in the word to <i>tickle</i>, G. <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">kitzeln</i>, ON. <i lang="non" xml:lang="non">kitla</i>, Dan. <i lang="da" xml:lang="da">kilde</i> (<i>d</i> mute), -Nubian <i>killi-killi</i>, and similar forms (Schuchardt, <cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Nubisch. u. -Bask.</cite> 9), Lat. <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">titillare</i>; cp. also the word for the kind of laughter -thus produced: <i>titter</i>, G. <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">kichern</i>.</p> - - -<h4>XX.—§ 6. Things and Appearances.</h4> - -<p>Further, we have the extension of symbolical designation to -things; here, too, there is some more or less obvious association -of what is only visible with some sound or sounds. This has been -specially studied by Hilmer, to whose book (Sch) the reader is -referred for numerous examples, e.g. p. 237 ff., <i>knap</i> ‘a thick stick, -a knot of wood, a bit of food, a protuberance, a small hill;’ <i>knop</i> -‘a boss, stud, button, knob, a wart, pimple, the bud of a flower, -a promontory,’ with the variants <i>knob</i>, <i>knup</i>.... Hilmer’s -word-lists from German and English comprise 170 pages!</p> - -<p>There is also a natural association between high tones (sounds -with very rapid vibrations) and light, and inversely between low -tones and darkness, as is seen in the frequent use of adjectives<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_401" id="Page_401">[401]</a></span> -like ‘light’ and ‘dark’ in speaking of notes. Hence the vowel -[i] is felt to be more appropriate for light, and [u] for dark, as -seen most clearly in the contrast between <i>gleam</i>, <i>glimmer</i>, <i>glitter</i> -on the one hand and <i>gloom</i> on the other (Zangwill somewhere -writes: “The gloom of night, relieved only by the gleam from -the street-lamp”); the word <i>light</i> itself, which has now a diphthong -which is not so adequate to the meaning, used to have the vowel -[i] like G. <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">licht</i>; for the opposite notions we have such words as -G. <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">dunkel</i>, Dan. <i lang="da" xml:lang="da">mulm</i>, Gr. <i>amolgós</i>, <i>skótos</i>, Lat. <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">obscurus</i>, and with -another ‘dark’ vowel E. <i>murky</i>, Dan. <i lang="da" xml:lang="da">mörk</i>.</p> - - -<h4>XX.—§ 7. States of Mind.</h4> - -<p>From this it is no far cry to words for corresponding states -of mind: to some extent the very same words are used, as <i>gloom</i> -(Dowden writes: “The good news was needed to cast a gleam -on the gloom that encompassed Shelley”); hence also <i>glum</i>, -<i>glumpy</i>, <i>glumpish</i>, <i>grumpy</i>, <i>the dumps</i>, <i>sulky</i>. If E. <i>moody</i> and -<i>sullen</i> have changed their significations (OE. <i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">modig</i> ‘high-spirited,’ -ME. <i>solein</i> ‘solitary’), sound symbolism, if I am not mistaken, -counts for something in the change; the adjectives now mean -exactly the same as Dan. <i lang="da" xml:lang="da">mut</i>, <i>but</i>.</p> - -<p>If <i>grumble</i> comes to mean the expression of a mental state of -dissatisfaction, the connexion between the sound of the word and -its sense is even more direct, for the verb is imitative of the sound -produced in such moods, cf. <i>mumble</i> and <i>grunt</i>, <i>gruntle</i>. The -name of Mrs. <i>Grundy</i> is not badly chosen as a representative of -narrow-minded conventional morality.</p> - -<p>A long list might be given of symbolic expressions for dislike, -disgust, or scorn; here a few hints only can find place. First we -have the same dull or dump (back) vowels as in the last paragraph: -<i>blunder</i>, <i>bungle</i>, <i>bung</i>, <i>clumsy</i>, <i>humdrum</i>, <i>humbug</i>, <i>strum</i>, <i>slum</i>, -<i>slush</i>, <i>slubber</i>, <i>sloven</i>, <i>muck</i>, <i>mud</i>, <i>muddle</i>, <i>mug</i> (various words, -but all full of contempt), <i>juggins</i> (a silly person), <i>numskull</i> (old -<i>numps</i>, <i>nup</i>, <i>nupson</i>), <i>dunderhead</i>, <i>gull</i>, <i>scug</i> (at Eton a dirty or -untidy boy).... Many words begin with <i>sl-</i> (we have already -seen some): <i>slight</i>, <i>slim</i>, <i>slack</i>, <i>sly</i>, <i>sloppy</i>, <i>slipslop</i>, <i>slubby</i>, <i>slattern</i>, -<i>slut</i>, <i>slosh</i>.... Initial labials are also frequent.<a name="FNanchor_103_103" id="FNanchor_103_103"></a><a href="#Footnote_103_103" class="fnanchor">[103]</a> After the -vowel we have very often the sound [ʃ] or [tʃ], as in <i>trash</i>, <i>tosh</i>, -<i>slosh</i>, <i>botch</i>, <i>patch</i>; cf. also G. <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">kitsch</i> (bad picture, smearing), -<i lang="de" xml:lang="de">patsch(e)</i> (mire, anything worthless), <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">quatsch</i> (silly nonsense), -<i lang="de" xml:lang="de">putsch</i> (riot, political <i>coup de main</i>). E. <i>bosh</i> (nonsense) is said -to be a Turkish loan-word; it has become popular for the same<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_402" id="Page_402">[402]</a></span> -reason for which the French nickname <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">boche</i> for a German was -widely used during the World War. Let me finally mention the -It. derivative suffix <i>-accio</i>, as in <i lang="it" xml:lang="it">poveraccio</i> (miserable), <i lang="it" xml:lang="it">acquaccia</i> -(bad water), and <i>-uccio</i>, as in <i lang="it" xml:lang="it">cavalluccio</i> (vile horse).</p> - - -<h4><a id="XX_8"></a>XX.—§ 8. Size and Distance.</h4> - -<p>The vowel [i], especially in its narrow or thin variety, is particularly -appropriate to express what is small, weak, insignificant, -or, on the other hand, refined or dainty. It is found in a great -many adjectives in various languages, e.g. <i>little</i>, <i>petit</i>, <i>piccolo</i>, -<i>piccino</i>, Magy. <i lang="hu" xml:lang="hu">kis</i>, E. <i>wee</i>, <i>tiny</i> (by children often pronounced -<i>teeny</i> [<i>ti·ni</i>]), <i>slim</i>, Lat. <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">minor</i>, <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">minimus</i>, Gr. <i>mikros</i>; further, in -numerous words for small children or small animals (the latter -frequently used as endearing or depreciative words for children), -e.g. <i>child</i> (formerly with [i·] sound), G. <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">kind</i>, Dan. <i lang="da" xml:lang="da">pilt</i>, E. <i>kid</i>, -<i>chit</i>, <i>imp</i>, <i>slip</i>, <i>pigmy</i>, <i>midge</i>, Sp. <i lang="es" xml:lang="es">chico</i>, or for small things: <i>bit</i>, -<i>chip</i>, <i>whit</i>, Lat. <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">quisquiliæ</i>, <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">mica</i>, E. <i>tip</i>, <i>pin</i>, <i>chink</i>, <i>slit</i>.... The -same vowel is found in diminutive suffixes in a variety of languages, -as E. <i>-y</i>, <i>-ie</i> (<i>Bobby</i>, <i>baby</i>, <i>auntie</i>, <i>birdie</i>), Du. <i>-ie</i>, <i>-je</i> (<i lang="nl" xml:lang="nl">koppie</i> ‘little -hill’), Gr. <i>-i-</i> (<i>paid-i-on</i> ‘little boy’), Goth. <i>-ein</i>, pronounced [i·n] -(<i>gumein</i> ‘little man’), E. <i>-kin</i>, <i>-ling</i>, Swiss German <i>-li</i>, It. <i>-ino</i>, -Sp. <i>-ico</i>, <i>-ito</i>, <i>-illo</i>....</p> - -<p>As smallness and weakness are often taken to be characteristic -of the female sex, I suspect that the Aryan feminine suffix <i>-i</i>, as -in Skr. <i>vṛkī</i> ‘she-wolf,’ <i>naptī</i> ‘niece,’ originally denotes smallness -(‘wolfy’), and in the same way we find the vowel <i>i</i> in many -feminine suffixes; thus late Lat. <i>-itta</i> (<i>Julitta</i>, etc., whence Fr. <i>-ette</i>, -<i>Henriette</i>, etc.), <i>-ina</i> (<i>Carolina</i>), further G. <i>-in</i> (<i lang="de" xml:lang="de">königin</i>), Gr. <i>-issa</i> -(<i>basilissa</i> ‘queen’), whence Fr. <i>-esse</i>, E. <i>-ess</i>.</p> - -<p>The same vowel [i] is also symbolical of a very short time, as -in the phrases <i>in a jiff</i>, <i>jiffy</i>, Sc. <i>in a clink</i>, Dan. <i lang="da" xml:lang="da">i en svip</i>; and -correspondingly we have adjectives like <i>quick</i>, <i>swift</i>, <i>vivid</i> and -others. No wonder, then, that the Germans feel their word for -‘lightning,’ <i>blitz</i>, singularly appropriate to the effect of light and to -the shortness of duration.<a name="FNanchor_104_104" id="FNanchor_104_104"></a><a href="#Footnote_104_104" class="fnanchor">[104]</a></p> - -<p>It has often been remarked<a name="FNanchor_105_105" id="FNanchor_105_105"></a><a href="#Footnote_105_105" class="fnanchor">[105]</a> that in corresponding pronouns -and adverbs the vowel <i>i</i> frequently indicates what is nearer, and -other vowels, especially <i>a</i> or <i>u</i>, what is farther off; thus Fr. <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">ci</i>, <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">là</i>,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_403" id="Page_403">[403]</a></span> -E. <i>here</i>, <i>there</i>, G. <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">dies</i>, <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">das</i>, Low G. <i lang="nds" xml:lang="nds">dit</i>, <i lang="nds" xml:lang="nds">dat</i>, Magy. <i lang="hu" xml:lang="hu">ez</i>, <i lang="hu" xml:lang="hu">emez</i> ‘this,’ -<i lang="hu" xml:lang="hu">az</i>, <i lang="hu" xml:lang="hu">amaz</i> ‘that,’ <i lang="hu" xml:lang="hu">itt</i> ‘here,’ <i lang="hu" xml:lang="hu">ott</i> ‘there,’ Malay <i lang="ms" xml:lang="ms">iki</i> ‘this,’ <i lang="ms" xml:lang="ms">ika</i> ‘that, -a little removed,’ <i lang="ms" xml:lang="ms">iku</i> ‘yon, farther away.’ In Hamitic languages -<i>i</i> symbolizes the near and <i>u</i> what is far away. We may here -also think of the word <i>zigzag</i> as denoting movement in alternate -turns here and there; and if in the two E. pronouns <i>this</i> and <i>that</i> -the old neuter forms have prevailed (OE. m. <i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">þes</i>, <i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">se</i>, f. <i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">þeos</i>, <i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">seo</i>, -n. <i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">þis</i>, <i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">þæt</i>) the reason (or one of the reasons) may have been that -a characteristic difference of vowels in the two contrasted pronouns -was thus secured.</p> - - -<h4><a id="XX_9"></a>XX.—§ 9. Length and Strength of Words and Sounds.</h4> - -<p>Shorter and more abrupt forms are more appropriate to certain -states of mind, longer ones to others. An imperative may be -used both for command and for a more or less humble appeal or -entreaty; in Magyar dialects there are short forms for command: -<i lang="hu" xml:lang="hu">írj</i>, <i lang="hu" xml:lang="hu">dolgozz</i>; long for entreaty: <i lang="hu" xml:lang="hu">írjál</i>, <i lang="hu" xml:lang="hu">dolgozzál</i> (Simonyi US 359, 214). -Were Lat. <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">dic</i>, <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">duc</i>, <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">fac</i>, <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">fer</i> used more than other imperatives in -commands? The fact that they alone lost <i>-e</i> might indicate that -this was so. On the other hand the imperatives <i>es</i>, <i>este</i> and <i>i</i> had -to yield to the fuller (and more polite) <i>esto</i>, <i>estote</i>, <i>vade</i>, and -<i>scito</i> is always said instead of <i>sci</i> (Wackernagel, <cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Gött. Ges. d. -Wiss.</cite>, 1906, 182, on the avoidance of too short forms in general). -Other languages, which have only one form for the imperative, -soften the commanding tone by adding some word like <i>please</i>, -<i lang="de" xml:lang="de">bitte</i>.</p> - -<p>An emotional effect is obtained in some cases by lengthening -a word by some derivative syllables, in themselves unmeaning; -thus in Danish words for ‘lengthy’ or ‘tiresome’: <i lang="da" xml:lang="da">langsommelig</i>, -<i lang="da" xml:lang="da">kedsommelig</i>, <i lang="da" xml:lang="da">evindelig</i> for <i lang="da" xml:lang="da">lang(som)</i>, <i lang="da" xml:lang="da">kedelig</i>, <i lang="da" xml:lang="da">evig</i>. (Cf. Ibsen, -<cite lang="da" xml:lang="da">Når vi døde vågner</cite> 98: <span lang="da" xml:lang="da">Du er kanske ble’t ked af dette evige -samliv med mig.—Evige? Sig lige så godt: evindelige.</span>) In the -same way the effect of <i>splendid</i> is strengthened in slang: <i>splendiferous</i>, -<i>splendidous</i>, <i>splendidious</i>, <i>splendacious</i>. A long word like -<i>aggravate</i> is felt to be more intense than <i>vex</i> (Coleman)—and that -may be the reason why the long word acquires a meaning that is -strange to its etymology. And “to disburden one’s self of a sense -of contempt, a robust full-bodied detonation, like, for instance, -<i>platitudinous</i>, is, unquestionably, very much more serviceable -than any evanescing squib of one or two syllables” (Fitzedward -Hall). Cf. also <i>multitudinous</i>, <i>multifarious</i>.</p> - -<p>We see now the emotional value of some ‘mouth-filling’ words, -some of which may be considered symbolical expansions of existing -words (what H. Schröder terms ‘<span lang="de" xml:lang="de">streckformen</span>’), though others<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_404" id="Page_404">[404]</a></span> -cannot be thus explained; not unfrequently the effect of length -is combined with some of the phonetic effects mentioned above. -Such words are, e.g., <i>slubberdegullion</i> ‘dirty fellow,’ <i>rumbustious</i> -‘boisterous,’ <i>rumgumption</i>, <i>rumfustian</i>, <i>rumbullion</i> (cf. <i>rumpuncheon</i> -‘cask of rum’ as a term of abuse in Stevenson, <i>Treas. -Isl.</i> 48, “the cowardly son of a rum-puncheon”), <i>rampallion</i> -‘villain,’ <i>rapscallion</i>, <i>ragamuffin</i>; <i>sculduddery</i> ‘obscenity’; <i>cantankerous</i> -‘quarrelsome,’ U.S. also <i>rantankerous</i> (cf. <i>cankerous</i>, -<i>rancorous</i>); <i>skilligalee</i> ‘miserable gruel,’ <i>flabbergast</i> ‘confound,’ -<i>catawampous</i> (or <i>-ptious</i>) ‘fierce’ (“a high-sounding word with no -very definite meaning,” NED); Fr. <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">hurluberlu</i> ‘crazy’ and the -synonymous Dan. <i lang="da" xml:lang="da">tummelumsk</i>, Norw. <i lang="no" xml:lang="no">tullerusk</i>.</p> - -<p>In this connexion one may mention the natural tendency to -lengthen and to strengthen single sounds under the influence of -strong feeling and in order to intensify the effect of the spoken -word; thus, in ‘it’s very cold’ both the diphthong [ou] and the [l] -may be pronounced extremely long, in ‘terribly dull’ the [l] is -lengthened, in ‘extremely long’ either the vowel [ɔ] or the [ŋ] -(or both) may be lengthened. In Fr. ‘<span lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">c’était horrible</span>’ the trill -of the [r] becomes very long and intense (while the same effect -is not generally possible in the corresponding English word, because -the English [r] is not trilled, but pronounced by one flap of the -tip). In some cases a lengthening due to such a psychological -cause may permanently alter a word, as when Lat. <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">totus</i> in It. -has become <i lang="it" xml:lang="it">tutto</i> (Fr. <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">tout</i>, <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">toute</i> goes back to the same form, while -Sp. <i lang="es" xml:lang="es">todo</i> has preserved the form corresponding to the Lat. single -consonant). An interesting collection of such cases from the -Romanic tongues has been published by A. J. Carnoy (<cite>Mod. Philol.</cite> -15. 31, July 1917), who justly emphasizes the symbolic value of -the change and the special character of the words in which it -occurs (pet-names, children’s words, ironic or derisive words, -imitative words ...). He says: “While to a phonetician the -phenomenon would seem capricious, its apportionment in the -vocabulary is quite natural to a psychologist. In fact, reduplication, -be it of syllables or of consonants, generally has that character -in languages. One finds it in perfective tenses, in intensive or -frequentative verbs, in the plural, and in collectives. In most -cases it is a reduplication of syllables, but a lengthening of vowels -is not rare and the reinforcement of consonants is also found. -In Chinook, for instance, the emotional words, both diminutive -and augmentative, are expressed by increasing the stress of consonants. -It is, of course, also well known that in Semitic the -intensive radical of verbs is regularly formed by a reduplication -of consonants. To a stem <i>qatal</i>, e.g., answers an intensive: Eth. -<i>qattala</i>, Hebr. <i>qittel</i>. Cf. Hebr. <i>shibbar</i> ‘to cut in small pieces’<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_405" id="Page_405">[405]</a></span> -[cf. below], <i>hillech</i> ‘to walk,’ <i>qibber</i> ‘to bury many,’ etc. Cf. -Brockelmann, <cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Vergl. Gramm.</cite>, p. 244.”</p> - -<p>I add a few more examples from Misteli (428 f.) of this Semitic -strengthening: the first vowel is lengthened to express a tendency -or an attempt: <i>qatala jaqtulu</i> ‘kill’ (in the third person masc., -the former in the prefect-aorist, the latter in the imperfect-durative, -where <i>ja</i>, <i>ju</i> is the sign of the third person m.), <i>qātala -juqātilu</i> ‘try to kill, fight’; <i>faXara jufXaru</i> ‘excel in fame,’ -<i>fāXara jufāXiru</i> ‘try to excel, vie.’ Through lengthening -(doubling) of a consonant an intensification of the action is denoted: -Hebr. <i>šāβar jišbōr</i> ‘<span lang="de" xml:lang="de">zerbrechen</span>,’ <i>šibbēr jẹšabbēr</i> ‘<span lang="de" xml:lang="de">zerschmettern</span>,’ -Arab. <i>ḍaraba jaḍrubu</i> ‘strike,’ <i>ḍarraba juḍarribu</i> ‘beat violently, -or repeatedly’; sometimes the change makes a verb into a causative -or transitive, etc.</p> - -<p>I imagine that we have exactly the same kind of strengthening -for psychological (symbolical) reasons in a number of verbs where -Danish has <i>pp</i>, <i>tt</i>, <i>kk</i> by the side of <i>b</i>, <i>d</i>, <i>g</i> (spirantic): <i lang="da" xml:lang="da">pippe</i> <i lang="da" xml:lang="da">pibe</i>, -<i lang="da" xml:lang="da">stritte</i> <i lang="da" xml:lang="da">stride</i>, <i lang="da" xml:lang="da">snitte</i> <i lang="da" xml:lang="da">snide</i>, <i lang="da" xml:lang="da">skøtte</i> <i lang="da" xml:lang="da">skøde</i>, <i lang="da" xml:lang="da">splitte</i> <i lang="da" xml:lang="da">splide</i>, <i lang="da" xml:lang="da">skrikke</i> <i lang="da" xml:lang="da">skrige</i>, -<i lang="da" xml:lang="da">lukke</i> <i lang="da" xml:lang="da">luge</i>, <i lang="da" xml:lang="da">hikke</i> <i lang="da" xml:lang="da">hige</i>, <i lang="da" xml:lang="da">sikke</i> <i lang="da" xml:lang="da">sige</i>, <i lang="da" xml:lang="da">kikke</i> <i lang="da" xml:lang="da">kige</i>, <i lang="da" xml:lang="da">prikke</i> <i lang="da" xml:lang="da">prige</i> (cf. also -<i lang="da" xml:lang="da">sprække</i> <i lang="da" xml:lang="da">sprænge</i>). Some of these forms are obsolete, others -dialectal, but it would take us too far in this place to deal with -the words in detail. It is customary to ascribe this gemination to -an old <i>n</i> derivative (see, e.g., Brugmann VG 1. 390, Streitberg Urg -pp. 135, 138, Noreen UL 154), but it does not seem necessary to -conjure up an <i>n</i> from the dead to make it disappear again immediately, -as the mere strengthening of the consonant itself to -express symbolically the strengthening of the action has nothing -unnatural in it. Cf. also G. <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">placken</i> by the side of <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">plagen</i>. The -opposite change, a weakening, may have taken place in E. <i>flag</i> -(cf. OFr. <i lang="fro" xml:lang="fro">flaquir</i>, to become flaccid), <i>flabby</i>, earlier <i>flappy</i>, <i>drib</i> from -<i>drip</i>, <i>slab</i>, if from OFr. <i lang="fro" xml:lang="fro">esclape</i>, <i>clod</i> by the side of <i>clot</i>, and possibly -<i>cadge</i>, <i>bodge</i>, <i>grudge</i>, <i>smudge</i>, which had all of them originally <i>-tch</i>. -But the common modification in sense is not so easily perceived -here as in the cases of strengthening.</p> - -<p>I may here, for the curiosity of the thing, mention that in -a ‘language’ coined by two English children (a vocabulary of -which was communicated to me by one of the inventors through -Miss I. C. Ward, of the Department of Phonetics, University -College, London) there was a word <i>bal</i> which meant ‘place,’ but -the bigger the place the longer the vowel was made, so that with -three different quantities it meant ‘village,’ ‘town’ and ‘city’ -respectively. The word for ‘go’ was <i>dudu</i>, “the greater the -speed of the going, the more quickly the word was said—[dœ·dœ·] -walk slowly.” Cf. Humboldt, ed. Steinthal 82: “In the southern -dialect of the Guarani language the suffix of the perfect <i>yma</i> is<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_406" id="Page_406">[406]</a></span> -pronounced more or less slowly according to the more or less -remoteness of the past to be indicated.”</p> - - -<h4>XX.—§ 10. General Considerations.</h4> - -<p>Sound symbolism, as we have considered it in this chapter, -has a very wide range of application, from direct imitation of -perceived natural sounds to such small quantitative changes of -existing non-symbolic words as may be used for purely grammatical -purposes. But in order to obtain a true valuation of this -factor in the life of language it is of importance to keep in view the -following considerations:</p> - -<p>(1) No language utilizes sound symbolism to its full extent, -but contains numerous words that are indifferent to or may even -jar with symbolism. To express smallness the vowel [i] is most -adequate, but it would be absurd to say that that vowel always -implies smallness, or that smallness is always expressed by words -containing that vowel: it is enough to mention the words <i>big</i> and -<i>small</i>, or to point to the fact that <i>thick</i> and <i>thin</i> have the same -vowel, to repudiate such a notion.</p> - -<p>(2) Words that have been symbolically expressive may cease -to be so in consequence of historical development, either phonetic -or semantic or both. Thus the name of the bird <i>crow</i> is not now -so good an imitation of the sound made by the bird as OE. <i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">crawe</i> -was (Dan. <i lang="da" xml:lang="da">krage</i>, Du. <i lang="nl" xml:lang="nl">kraai</i>). Thus, also, the verbs <i>whine</i>, <i>pipe</i> -were better imitations when the vowel was still [i·] (as in Dan. -<i lang="da" xml:lang="da">hvine</i>, <i lang="da" xml:lang="da">pibe</i>). But to express the sound of a small bird the latter -word is still pronounced with the vowel [i] either long or short -(<i>peep</i>, <i>pip</i>), the word having been constantly renewed and as it -were reshaped by fresh imitation; cf. on Irish <i>wheen</i> and dialectal -<i>peep</i>, XV § <a href="#XV_8">8</a>. Lat. <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">pipio</i> originally meant any ‘peeping bird,’ -but when it came to designate one particular kind of birds, it was -free to follow the usual trend of phonetic development, and so -has become Fr. <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">pigeon</i> [piʒɔ̃], E. <i>pigeon</i> [pidʒin]. E. <i>cuckoo</i> has -resisted the change from [u] to ʌ as in <i>cut</i>, because people have -constantly heard the sound and fashioned the name of the bird -from it. I once heard a Scotch lady say [kʌku·], but on my inquiry -she told me that there were no cuckoos in her native place; hence -the word had there been treated as any other word containing the -short [u]. The same word is interesting in another way; it has -resisted the old Gothonic consonant-shift, and thus has the same -consonants as Skt. <i>kōkiláḥ</i>, Gr. <i>kókkux</i>, Lat. <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">cuculus</i>. On the -general preservation of significative sounds, cf. Ch. XV § <a href="#XV_8">8</a>.</p> - -<p>(3) On the other hand, some words have in course of time -become more expressive than they were at first; we have some<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_407" id="Page_407">[407]</a></span>thing -that may be called secondary echoism or secondary symbolism. -The verb <i>patter</i> comes from <i>pater</i> (= <i>paternoster</i>), and at first meant -to repeat that prayer, to mumble one’s prayers; but then it was -associated with the homophonous verb <i>patter</i> ‘to make a rapid -succession of <i>pats</i>’ and came under the influence of echoic words -like <i>prattle</i>, <i>chatter</i>, <i>jabber</i>; it now, like these, means ‘to talk rapidly -or glibly’ and is to all intents a truly symbolical word; cf. also the -substantive <i>patter</i> ‘secret lingo, speechifying, talk.’ <i>Husky</i> may -at first have meant only “full of husks, of the nature of a husk” -(NED), but it could not possibly from that signification have -arrived at the now current sense ‘dry in the throat, hoarse’ if it -had not been that the sound of the adjective had reminded one -of the sound of a hoarse voice. Dan. <i lang="da" xml:lang="da">pöjt</i> ‘poor drink, vile stuff’ -is now felt as expressive of contempt, but it originates in <i>Poitou</i>, -an innocent geographical name of a kind of wine, like <i>Bordeaux</i>; -it is now connected with other scornful words like <i lang="da" xml:lang="da">spröjt</i> and <i lang="da" xml:lang="da">döjt</i>.</p> - -<p>In E. <i>little</i> the symbolic vowel <i>i</i> is regularly developed from -OE. <i>y</i>, <i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">lytel</i>, whose <i>y</i> is a mutated <i>u</i>, as seen in OSax. <i lang="osx" xml:lang="osx">luttil</i>; <i>u</i> also -appears in other related languages, and the word thus originally -had nothing symbolical about it. But in Gothic the word is <i>leitils</i> -(<i>ei</i>, sounded [i·]) and in ON. <i lang="non" xml:lang="non">lítinn</i>, and here the vowel is so difficult -to account for on ordinary principles that the NED in despair -thinks that the two words are “radically unconnected.” I have -no hesitation in supposing that the vowel <i>i</i> is due to sound symbolism, -exactly as the smaller change introduced in modern E. -‘leetle,’ with narrow instead of wide (broad) [i]. In the word -for the opposite meaning, <i>much</i>, the phonetic development may -also have been influenced by the tendency to get an adequate -vowel, for normally we should expect the vowel [i] as in Sc. <i>mickle</i>, -from OE. <i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">micel</i>. In E. <i>quick</i> the vowel best adapted to the idea -has prevailed instead of the one found in the old nom. forms -<i>cwucu</i>, <i>cucu</i> from <i>cwicu</i> (inflected <i>cwicne</i>, <i>cwices</i>, etc.), while in the -word <i>widu</i>, <i>wudu</i>, which is phonetically analogous, there was no -such inducement, and the vowel [u] has been preserved: <i>wood</i>. -The same prevalence of the symbolic <i>i</i> is noticed in the Dan. adj. -<i lang="da" xml:lang="da">kvik</i>, MLG. <i lang="gml" xml:lang="gml">quik</i>, while the same word as subst. has become Dan. -<i lang="da" xml:lang="da">kvæg</i>, MLG. <i lang="gml" xml:lang="gml">quek</i>, where there was no symbolism at work, as it -has come to mean ‘cattle.’ I even see symbolism in the preservation -of the <i>k</i> in the Dan. adj. (as against the fricative in <i lang="da" xml:lang="da">kvæg</i>), -because the notion of ‘quick’ is best expressed by the short [i], -interrupted by a stop; and may not the same force have been -at work in this adjective at an earlier period? The second <i>k</i> in -OE. <i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">cwicu</i>, ON. <i lang="non" xml:lang="non">kvikr</i> as against Goth. <i>qius</i>, Lat. <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">vivus</i>, has not -been sufficiently explained. An [i], symbolic of smallness, has been -introduced in some comparatively recent E. words: <i>tip</i> from <i>top</i>,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_408" id="Page_408">[408]</a></span> -<i>trip</i> ‘small flock’ from <i>troop</i>, <i>sip</i> ‘drink in small quantities’ from -<i>sup</i>, <i>sop</i>.</p> - -<p>Through changes in meaning, too, some words have become -symbolically more expressive than they were formerly; thus the -agreement between sound and sense is of late growth in <i>miniature</i>, -which now, on account of the <i>i</i>, has come to mean ‘a small picture,’ -while at first it meant ‘image painted with minium or vermilion,’ -and in <i>pittance</i>, now ‘a scanty allowance,’ formerly any pious -donation, whether great or small. Cf. what has been said above -of <i>sullen</i>, <i>moody</i>, <i>catch</i>.</p> - - -<h4>XX.—§ 11. Importance of Suggestiveness.</h4> - -<p>The suggestiveness of some words as felt by present-day -speakers is a fact that must be taken into account if we are to -understand the realities of language. In some cases it may have -existed from the very first: these words sprang thus into being -because that shape at once expressed the idea the speaker wished -to communicate. In other cases the suggestive element is not -original: these words arose in the same way as innumerable others -whose sound has never carried any suggestion. But if the sound -of a word of this class was, or came to be, in some way suggestive -of its signification—say, if a word containing the vowel [i] in a -prominent place meant ‘small’ or something small—then the sound -exerted a strong influence in gaining popular favour to the word; -it was an inducement to people to choose and to prefer that -particular word and to cease to use words for the same notion -that were not thus favoured. Sound symbolism, we may say, -makes some words more fit to survive and gives them considerable -help in their struggle for existence. If we want to denote a little -child by a word for some small animal, we take some word like -<i>kid</i>, <i>chick</i>, <i>kitten</i>, rather than <i>bat</i> or <i>pug</i> or <i>slug</i>, though these may -in themselves be smaller than the animal chosen.</p> - -<p>It is quite true that Fr. <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">rouler</i>, our <i>roll</i>, is derived from Lat. -<i lang="la" xml:lang="la">rota</i> ‘wheel’ + a diminutive ending <i>-ul-</i>, but the word would -never have gained its immense popularity, extending as it does -through English, Dutch, German and the Scandinavian languages, -if the sound had not been eminently suggestive of the sense, so -suggestive that it seems to us now <em>the</em> natural expression for that -idea, and we have difficulty in realizing that the word has not -existed from the very dawn of speech. Or let me take another -example, in which the connexion between sound and sense is even -more ‘fortuitous.’ About a hundred years ago a member of -Congress, Felix Walker, from Buncombe County, North Carolina, -made a long and tedious speech. “Many members left the hall.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_409" id="Page_409">[409]</a></span> -Very naïvely he told those who remained that they might go too; -he should speak for some time, but ‘he was only talking for -Buncombe,’ to please his constituents.” Now <i>buncombe</i> (<i>buncome</i>, -<i>bunkum</i>) has become a widely used word, not only in the States, -but all over the English-speaking world, for political speaking or -action not resting on conviction, but on the desire of gaining the -favour of electors, or for any kind of empty ‘clap-trap’ oratory; -but does anybody suppose that the name of Mr. Walker’s constituency -would have been thus used if he had happened to hail from -Annapolis or Philadelphia, or some other place with a name incapable -of tickling the popular fancy in the same way as <i>Buncombe</i> does? -(Cf. above, p. <a href="#Page_401">401</a> on the suggestiveness of the short <i>u</i>.) In a -similar way <i>hullaballoo</i> seems to have originated from the Irish -village <i>Ballyhooly</i> (see P. W. Joyce, <cite>English as we speak it in -Ireland</cite>) and to have become popular on account of its suggestive -sound.</p> - -<p>In loan-words we can often see that they have been adopted -less on account of any cultural necessity (see above, p. <a href="#Page_209">209</a>) than -because their sound was in some way or other suggestive. Thus -the Algonkin (Natick) word for ‘chief,’ <i>mugquomp</i>, is used in the -United States in the form of <i>mugwump</i> for a ‘great man’ or ‘boss,’ -and especially, in political life, for a man independent of parties -and thinking himself superior to parties. Now, no one would -have thought of going to an Indian language to express such a -notion, had not an Indian word presented itself which from its -uncouth sound lent itself to purposes of ridicule. Among other -words whose adoption has been favoured by their sounds I may -mention <i>jungle</i> (from Hindi <i>jangal</i>, associated more or less closely -with <i>jumble</i>, <i>tumble</i>, <i>bundle</i>, <i>bungle</i>); <i>bobbery</i>, in slang ‘noise, -squabble,’ “the Anglo-Indian colloquial representation of a common -exclamation of Hindus when in surprise or grief—<i>Bap-rē!</i> or -<i>Bap-rē Bap</i> ‘O Father!’” (Hobson-Jobson); <i>amuck</i>; and U.S. -<i>bunco</i> ‘swindling game, to swindle,’ from It. <i lang="it" xml:lang="it">banco</i>.</p> - - -<h4>XX.—§ 12. Ancient and Modern Times.</h4> - -<p>It will be seen that our conception of echoism and related -phenomena does not carry us back to an imaginary primitive -period: these forces are vital in languages as we observe them -day by day. Linguistic writers, however, often assume that -sound symbolism, if existing at all, must date back to the earliest -times, and therefore can have no reality nowadays. Thus Benfey -(Gesch 288) turns upon de Brosse, who had found rudeness in -Fr. <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">rude</i> and gentleness in Fr. <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">doux</i>, and says: “As if the sounds -of such words, which are distant by an infinite length of time from<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_410" id="Page_410">[410]</a></span> -the time when language originated, were able to contribute ever -so little to explain the original designation of things.” (But -Benfey is right in saying that the impression made by those two -French words may be imaginary; as examples they are not particularly -well chosen.) Sütterlin (WW 14) says: “It is bold to -search for such correspondence as still existing in detail in the -language of our own days. For words like <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">liebe</i>, <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">süss</i> on the one -hand, and <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">zorn</i>, <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">hass</i>, <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">hart</i> on the other, which are often alleged -by dilettanti, prove nothing to the scholar, because their form -is young and must have had totally different sounds in the period -when language was created.”</p> - -<p>Similarly de Saussure (LG 104) gives as one of the main principles -of our science that the tie between sound and sense is -arbitrary or rather motiveless (<span lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">immotivé</span>), and to those who would -object that onomatopoetic words are not arbitrary he says that -“they are never organic elements of a linguistic system. Besides, -they are much less numerous than is generally supposed. Such -words as Fr. <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">fouet</i> and <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">glas</i> may strike some ears with a suggestive -ring;<a name="FNanchor_106_106" id="FNanchor_106_106"></a><a href="#Footnote_106_106" class="fnanchor">[106]</a> but they have not had that character from the start, as is -sufficiently proved if we go back to their Latin forms (<i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">fouet</i> derived -from <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">fagus</i> ‘beech,’ <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">glas</i> = <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">classicum</i>); the quality possessed by, -or rather attributed to, their actual sounds is a fortuitous result -of phonetic development.”</p> - -<p>Here we see one of the characteristics of modern linguistic -science: it is so preoccupied with etymology, with the origin of -words, that it pays much more attention to what words have -come from than to what they have come to be. If a word has -not always been suggestive on account of its sound, then its actual -suggestiveness is left out of account and may even be declared -to be merely fanciful. I hope that this chapter contains throughout -what is psychologically a more true and linguistically a more -fruitful view.</p> - -<p>Though some echo words may be very old, the great majority -are not; at any rate, in looking up the earliest ascertained date -of a goodly number of such words in the NED, I have been struck -by the fact of so many of them being quite recent, not more than -a few centuries old, and some not even that. To some extent<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_411" id="Page_411">[411]</a></span> -their recent appearance in writing may be ascribed to the general -character of the old literature as contrasted with our modern -literature, which is less conventional, freer in many ways, more -true to life with its infinite variety and more true, too, to the -spoken language of every day. But that cannot account for -everything, and there is every probability that this class of words -is really more frequent in the spoken language of recent times -than it was formerly, because people speak in a more vivid and -fresh fashion than their ancestors of hundreds or thousands of -years ago. The time of psychological reaction is shorter than it -used to be, life moves at a more rapid rate, and people are less -tied down to tradition than in former ages, consequently they are -more apt to create and to adopt new words of this particular type, -which are felt at once to be significant and expressive. In all -languages the creation and use of echoic and symbolic words seems -to have been on the increase in historical times. If to this we -add the selective process through which words which have only -secondarily acquired symbolical value survive at the cost of less -adequate expressions, or less adequate forms of the same words, -and subsequently give rise to a host of derivatives, then we may -say that languages in course of time grow richer and richer in -symbolic words. So far from believing in a golden primitive age, -in which everything in language was expressive and immediately -intelligible on account of the significative value of each group of -sounds, we arrive rather, here as in other domains, at the conception -of a slow progressive development towards a greater -number of easy and adequate expressions—expressions in which -sound and sense are united in a marriage-union closer than was -ever known to our remote ancestors.</p> - - - -<div class="chapter"> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_412" id="Page_412">[412]</a></span></p> - - - - - -<h3 class="nobreak"><a name="CHAPTER_XXI" id="CHAPTER_XXI">CHAPTER XXI</a><br /> - -<span class="larger">THE ORIGIN OF SPEECH</span></h3> -</div> - -<div class="blockquot chaptersummary"> - -<p>§ 1. Introduction. § 2. Former Theories. § 3. Method. § 4. Sounds. -§ 5. Grammar. § 6. Units. § 7. Irregularities. § 8. Savage -Tribes. § 9. Law of Development. § 10. Vocabulary. § 11. Poetry -and Prose. § 12. Emotional Songs. § 13. Primitive Singing. -§ 14. Approach to Language. § 15. The Earliest Sentences. -§ 16. Conclusion.</p></div> - - -<h4>XXI.—§ 1. Introduction.</h4> - -<p>Much of what is contained in the last chapters is preparatory -to the theme which is to occupy us in this chapter, the ultimate -origin of human speech. We have already seen the feeling with -which this subject has often been regarded by eminent linguists, -the feeling which led to an absolute taboo of the question in the -French <span lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Société de linguistique</span> (p. <a href="#Page_96">96</a>). One may here quote -Whitney: “No theme in linguistic science is more often and -more voluminously treated than this, and by scholars of every -grade and tendency; nor any, it may be added, with less profitable -result in proportion to the labour expended; the greater part of -what is said and written upon it is mere windy talk, the assertion -of subjective views which commend themselves to no mind save -the one that produces them, and which are apt to be offered with -a confidence, and defended with a tenacity, that are in inverse -ratio to their acceptableness. This has given the whole question -a bad repute among sober-minded philologists” (OLS 1. 279).</p> - -<p>Nevertheless, linguistic science cannot refrain for ever from -asking about the whence (and about the whither) of linguistic -evolution. And here we must first of all realize that man is not -the only animal that has a ‘language,’ though at present we know -very little about the real nature and expressiveness of the languages -of birds and mammals or of the signalling system of ants, etc. -The speech of some animals may be more like our language than -most people are willing to admit—it may also in some respects -be even more perfect than human language precisely because it -is unlike it and has developed along lines about which we can know -nothing; but it is of little avail to speculate on these matters. What -is certain is that no race of mankind is without a language which<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_413" id="Page_413">[413]</a></span> -in everything essential is identical in character with our own, -and that there are a certain number of circumstances which have -been of signal importance in assisting mankind in developing -language (cf. Gabelentz Spr 294 ff.).</p> - -<p>First of all, man has an upright gait; this gives him two limbs -more than the dog has, for instance: he can carry things and yet -jabber on; he is not reduced to defending himself by biting, but -can use his mouth for other purposes. Feeding also takes less -time in his case than in that of the cow, who has little time for anything -else than chewing and a <i>moo</i> now and then. The sexual -life of man is not restricted to one particular time of the year, -the two sexes remain together the whole year round, and thus -sociability is promoted; the helplessness of babies works in the -same direction through necessitating a more continuous family -life, in which there is also time enough for all kinds of sports, including -play with the vocal organs. Thus conditions have been -generally favourable for the development of singing and talking, -but the problem is, how could sounds and ideas come to be connected -as they are in language?</p> - -<p>What method or methods have we for the solution of this question? -With very few exceptions those who have written about our -subject have conjured up in their imagination a primitive era, and -then asked themselves: How would it be possible for men or manlike -beings, hitherto unfurnished with speech, to acquire speech as -a means of communication of thought? Not only is this method -followed, so to speak, instinctively by investigators, but we are -even positively told (by Marty) that it is the only method possible. -In direct opposition to this assertion, I think that it is chiefly and -principally due to this method and to this way of putting the -question that so little has yet been done to solve it. If we are -to have any hope of success in our investigation we must try new -methods and new ways—and fortunately there <em>are</em> ways which -lead us to a point from which we may expect to see the world of -primitive language revealed to us in a new light. But let us first -cast a rapid glance at those theories which have been advanced -by followers of the speculative or <i>a priori</i> method.</p> - - -<h4>XXI.—§ 2. Former Theories.</h4> - -<p>One theory is that primitive words were imitative of sounds: -man copied the barking of dogs and thereby obtained a natural -word with the meaning of ‘dog’ or ‘bark.’ To this theory, nicknamed -the <i>bow-wow</i> theory, Renan objects that it seems rather -absurd to set up this chronological sequence: first the lower animals -are original enough to cry and roar; and then comes man, making<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_414" id="Page_414">[414]</a></span> -a language for himself by imitating his inferiors. But surely man -would imitate not only the cries of inferior animals, but also those -of his fellow-men, and the salient point of the theory is this: sounds -which in one creature were produced without any meaning, but -which were characteristic of that creature, could by man be used -to designate the creature itself (or the movement or action productive -of the sound). In this way an originally unmeaning sound -could in the mouth of an imitator and in the mind of someone -hearing that imitation acquire a real meaning. In the chapter -on Sound Symbolism I have tried to show how from the rudest -and most direct imitations of this kind we may arrive through -many gradations at some of the subtlest effects of human speech, -and how imitation, in the widest sense we can give to this word—a -wider sense than most advocates of the theory seem able to -imagine—is so far from belonging exclusively to a primitive age -that it is not extinct even yet. There is not much of value in Max -Müller’s remark that “the onomatopœic theory goes very smoothly -as long as it deals with cackling hens and quacking ducks; but -round that poultry-yard there is a high wall, and we soon find -that it is behind that wall that language really begins” (<cite>Life</cite> 2. 97), -or in his other remark that “words of this kind (<i>cuckoo</i>) are, like -artificial flowers, without a root. They are sterile, and unfit to -express anything beyond the one object which they imitate” -(ib. 1. 410). But <i>cuckoo</i> may become <i>cuckold</i> (Fr. <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">cocu</i>), and from -<i>cock</i> are derived the names Müller himself mentions, Fr. <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">coquet</i>, -<i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">coquetterie</i>, <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">cocart</i>, <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">cocarde</i>, <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">coquelicot</i>.... Echoic words may be -just as fertile as any other part of the vocabulary.</p> - -<p>Another theory is the interjectional, nicknamed the <i>pooh-pooh</i>, -theory: language is derived from instinctive ejaculations called -forth by pain or other intense sensations or feelings. The adherents -of this theory generally take these interjections for granted, without -asking about the way in which they have come into existence. -Darwin, however, in <cite>The Expression of the Emotions</cite>, gives purely -physiological reasons for some interjections, as when the feeling -of contempt or disgust is accompanied by a tendency “to blow -out of the mouth or nostrils, and this produces sounds like <i>pooh</i> or -<i>pish</i>.” Again, “when anyone is startled or suddenly astonished, -there is an instantaneous tendency, likewise from an intelligible -cause, namely, to be ready for prolonged exertion, to open the -mouth widely, so as to draw a deep and rapid inspiration. When -the next full expiration follows, the mouth is slightly closed, and -the lips, from causes hereafter to be discussed, are somewhat -protruded; and this form of the mouth, if the voice be at all -exerted, produces ... the sound of the vowel <i>o</i>. Certainly a -deep sound of a prolonged <i>Oh!</i> may be heard from a whole crowd<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_415" id="Page_415">[415]</a></span> -of people immediately after witnessing any astonishing spectacle. -If, together with surprise, pain be felt, there is a tendency to contract -all the muscles of the body, including those of the face, and -the lips will then be drawn back; and this will perhaps account -for the sound becoming higher and assuming the character of -<i>Ah!</i> or <i>Ach!</i>”</p> - -<p>To the ordinary interjectional theory it may be objected that -the usual interjections are abrupt expressions for sudden sensations -and emotions; they are therefore isolated in relation to the speech -material used in the rest of the language. “Between interjection -and word there is a chasm wide enough to allow us to say that the -interjection is the negation of language, for interjections are -employed only when one either cannot or will not speak” (Benfey -Gesch 295). This ‘chasm’ is also shown phonetically by the fact -that the most spontaneous interjections often contain sounds -which are not used in language proper, voiceless vowels, inspiratory -sounds, clicks, etc., whence the impossibility properly to -represent them by means of our ordinary alphabet: the spellings -<i>pooh</i>, <i>pish</i>, <i>whew</i>, <i>tut</i> are very poor renderings indeed of the natural -sounds. On the other hand, many interjections are now more -or less conventionalized and are learnt like any other words, consequently -with a different form in different languages: in pain a -German and a Seelander will exclaim <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">au</i>, a Jutlander <i lang="da" xml:lang="da">aus</i>, a Frenchman -<i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">ahi</i> and an Englishman <i>oh</i>, or perhaps <i>ow</i>. Kipling writes -in one of his stories: “That man is no Afghan, for they weep -‘Ai! Ai!’ Nor is he of Hindustan, for they weep ‘Oh! Ho!’ -He weeps after the fashion of the white men, who say, ‘Ow! Ow!’”</p> - -<p>A closely related theory is the nativistic, nicknamed the <i>ding-dong</i>, -theory, according to which there is a mystic harmony between -sound and sense: “There is a law which runs through nearly -the whole of nature, that everything which is struck rings. Each -substance has its peculiar ring.” Language is the result of an -instinct, a “faculty peculiar to man in his primitive state, by which -every impression from without received its vocal expression from -within”—a faculty which “became extinct when its object was -fulfilled.” This theory, which Max Müller propounded and afterwards -wisely abandoned, is mentioned here for the curiosity of the -matter only.</p> - -<p>Noiré started a fourth theory, nicknamed the <i>yo-he-ho</i>: under -any strong muscular effort it is a relief to the system to let breath -come out strongly and repeatedly, and by that process to let the -vocal chords vibrate in different ways; when primitive acts were -performed in common, they would, therefore, naturally be accompanied -with some sounds which would come to be associated with -the idea of the act performed and stand as a name for it; the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_416" id="Page_416">[416]</a></span> -first words would accordingly mean something like ‘heave’ or -‘haul.’</p> - -<p>Now, these theories, here imperfectly reproduced each in a few -lines, are mutually antagonistic: thus Noiré thinks it possible to -explain the origin of speech without sound imitation. And yet -what should prevent our combining these several theories and using -them concurrently? It would seem to matter very little whether -the first word uttered by man was <i>bow-wow</i> or <i>pooh-pooh</i>, for the -fact remains that he said both one and the other. Each of the three -chief theories enables one to explain <em>parts of language</em>, but still -only parts, and not even the most important parts—the main -body of language seems hardly to be touched by any of them. -Again, with the exception of Noiré’s theory, they are too -individualistic and take too little account of language as a -means of human intercourse. Moreover, they all tacitly assume -that up to the creation of language man had remained mute or -silent; but this is most improbable from a physiological point -of view. As a rule we do not find an organ already perfected -on the first occasion of its use; it is only by use that an organ -is developed.</p> - - -<h4>XXI.—§ 3. Method.</h4> - -<p>So much for the results of the first method of approaching -the question of the origin of speech, that of trying to picture to -oneself a speechless mankind and speculating on the way in which -language could then have originated. We shall now, as hinted -above (p. <a href="#Page_413">413</a>), indicate the ways in which it is possible to supplement, -and even in some measure to supplant, this speculative -or deductive method by means of inductive reasonings. These -can be based on three fields of investigation, namely:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> -(1) The language of children;<br /> -(2) The language of primitive races, and<br /> -(3) The history of language.<br /> -</div> - -<p> -Of these, the third is the most fruitful source of information.<br /> -</p> - -<p>First, as to the language of children. Some biologists maintain -that the development of the individual follows on the whole the -same course as that of the race; the embryo, before it arrives at -full maturity, will have passed through the same stages of development -which in countless generations have led the whole species -to its present level. It has, therefore, occurred to many that the -acquisition by mankind at large of the faculty of speech may -be mirrored to us in the process by which any child learns to -communicate its thoughts by means of its vocal organs. Accord<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_417" id="Page_417">[417]</a></span>ingly, -children’s language has often been invoked to furnish illustrations -and parallels of the process gone through in the formation -of primitive language. But many writers have been guilty of an -erroneous inference in applying this principle, inasmuch as they have -taken all their examples from a child’s acquisition of an already -existing language. The fallacy will be evident if we suppose for -a moment the case of a man endeavouring to arrive at the evolution -of music from the manner in which a child is nowadays taught to -play on the piano. Manifestly, the modern learner is in quite -a different position to primitive man, and has quite a different -task set him: he has an instrument ready to hand, and melodies -already composed for him, and finally a teacher who understands -how to draw these tunes forth from the instrument. It is the same -thing with language: the task of the child is to learn an existing -language, that is, to connect certain sounds heard on the lips of -others with the same ideas that the speakers associate with them, -but not in the least to frame anything new. No; if we are seeking -some parallel to the primitive acquisition of language, we must -look elsewhere and turn to baby language as it is spoken in the first -year of life, before the child has begun to ‘notice’ and to make -out what use is made of language by grown-up people. Here, -in the child’s first purposeless murmuring, crowing and babbling, -we have real nature sounds; here we may expect to find some -clue to the infancy of the language of the race. And, again, we -must not neglect the way children have of creating new words -never heard before, and often of attaching a sense to originally -meaningless conglomerations of sound.</p> - -<p>As for the languages of contemporary savages, we may in some -instances take them as typical of more primitive languages than -those of civilized nations, and therefore as illustrating a linguistic -stage that is nearer to that in which speech originated. Still, -inferences from such languages should be used with great caution, -for it should never be forgotten that even the most backward -race has many centuries of linguistic evolution behind it, and that -the conditions therefore may, or must, be very different from those -of primeval man. The so-called primitive languages will therefore -in the following sections be only invoked to corroborate conclusions -at which it is possible to arrive from other data.</p> - -<p>The third and most fruitful source from which to gather information -of value for our investigation is the history of language -as it has been considered in previous chapters of this work. While -the propounders of the theories of the origin of speech mentioned -above made straight for the front of the lion’s den, we are like -the fox in the fable, who noticed that all the traces led into the den -and not a single one came out; we will therefore try and steal<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_418" id="Page_418">[418]</a></span> -into the den from behind. They thought it logically correct, -nay necessary, to begin at the beginning; let us, for variety’s -sake, begin with languages accessible at the present day, and let -us attempt from that starting-point step by step to trace the -backward path. Perhaps in this way we may reach the very -first beginnings of speech.</p> - -<p>The method I recommend, and which I think I am the first -to employ consistently, is to trace our modern twentieth-century -languages as far back in time as history and our materials will -allow us; and then, from this comparison of present English with -Old English, of Danish with Old Norse, and of both with ‘Common -Gothonic,’ of French and Italian with Latin, of modern Indian -dialects with Sanskrit, etc., to deduce definite laws for the development -of languages in general, and to try and find a system of lines -which can be lengthened backwards beyond the reach of history. -If we should succeed in discovering certain qualities to be generally -typical of the earlier as opposed to the later stages of languages, -we shall be justified in concluding that the same qualities obtained -in a still higher degree in the earliest times of all; if we are able -within the historical era to demonstrate a definite direction of -linguistic evolution, we must be allowed to infer that the direction -was the same even in those primeval periods for which we have -no documents to guide us. But if the change witnessed in the -evolution of modern speech out of older forms of speech is thus -on a larger scale projected back into the childhood of mankind, -and if by this process we arrive finally at uttered sounds of such -a description that they can no longer be called a real language, -but something antecedent to language—why, then the problem -will have been solved; for transformation is something we can -understand, while a creation out of nothing can never be comprehended -by human understanding.</p> - -<p>This, then, will be the object of the following rapid sketch: -to search the several departments of the science of language for -general laws of evolution—most of them have already been discussed -at some length in the preceding chapters—then to magnify -the changes observed, and thus to form a picture of the outer -and inner structure of some sort of speech more primitive than the -most primitive language accessible to direct observation.</p> - - -<h4>XXI.—§ 4. Sounds.</h4> - -<p>First, as regards the purely phonetic side of language, we -observe everywhere the tendency to make pronunciation more -easy, so as to lessen the muscular effort; difficult combinations -of sounds are discarded, those only being retained which are<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_419" id="Page_419">[419]</a></span> -pronounced with ease (see Ch. XIV § <a href="#XIV_6">6</a> ff.). Modern research has -shown that the Proto-Aryan sound-system was much more complicated -than was imagined in the reconstructions of the middle -of the nineteenth century. In most languages now only such -sounds are used as are produced by expiration, while inbreathed -sounds and clicks or suction-stops are not found in connected -speech. In civilized languages we meet with such sounds only -in interjections, as when an inbreathed voiceless <i>l</i> (generally with -rhythmic variations of strength and corresponding small movements -of the tongue) is used to express delight in eating and drinking, -or when the click inadequately spelt <i>tut</i> is used to express -impatience. In some very primitive South African languages, -on the other hand, clicks are found as integral parts of words; -and Bleek has rendered it probable that in former stages of these -languages they were in more extensive use than now. We may -perhaps draw the conclusion that primitive languages in general -were rich in all kinds of difficult sounds.</p> - -<p>The following point is of more far-reaching consequence. In -some languages we find a gradual disappearance of tone or pitch -accent; this has been the case in Danish, whereas Norwegian -and Swedish have kept the old tones; so also in Russian as compared -with Serbo-Croatian. In the works of old Indian, Greek -and Latin grammarians we have express statements to the effect -that pitch accent played a prominent part in those languages, -and that the intervals used must have been comparatively greater -than is usual in our modern languages. In modern Greek and in -the Romanic languages the tone element has been obscured, and -now ‘stress’ is heard on the syllable where the ancients noted -only a high or a low tone. About the languages spoken nowadays -by savage tribes we have generally very little information, as most -of those who have made a first-hand study of such languages -have not been trained to observe and to describe these delicate -points; still, there is of late years an increasing number of observations -of tone accents, for instance in African languages, which -may justify us in thinking that tone plays an important part in -many primitive languages.<a name="FNanchor_107_107" id="FNanchor_107_107"></a><a href="#Footnote_107_107" class="fnanchor">[107]</a></p> -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_420" id="Page_420">[420]</a></span></p> -<p>So much for word tones; now for the sentence melody. It -is a well-known fact that the modulation of sentences is strongly -influenced by the effect of intense emotions in causing stronger -and more rapid raisings and sinkings of the tone. “All passionate -language does of itself become musical—with a finer music than -the mere accent; the speech of a man even in zealous anger becomes -a chant, a song” (Carlyle). “The sounds of common conversation -have but little resonance; those of strong feeling have much -more. Under rising ill-temper the voice acquires a metallic ring.... -Grief, unburdening itself, uses tones approaching in <i>timbre</i> -to those of chanting; and in his most pathetic passages an eloquent -speaker similarly falls into tones more vibratory than those -common to him.... While calm speech is comparatively monotonous, -emotion makes use of fifths, octaves, and even wider -intervals” (H. Spencer).</p> - -<p>Now, it is a consequence of advancing civilization that passion, -or, at least, the expression of passion, is moderated, and we must -therefore conclude that the speech of uncivilized and primitive -men was more passionately agitated than ours, more like music -or song. This conclusion is borne out by what we hear about the -speech of many savages in our own days. European travellers -very often record their impression of the speech of different tribes -in expressions like these: “pronouncing whatever they spoke in -a very singing manner,” “the singing tone of voice, in common -conversation, was frequent,” “the speech is very much modulated -and resembles singing,” “highly artificial and musical,” etc.</p> - -<p>These facts and considerations all point to the conclusion that -there once was a time when all speech was song, or rather when -these two actions were not yet differentiated; but perhaps this -inference cannot be established inductively at the present stage -of linguistic science with the same amount of certainty as the -statements I am now going to make as to the nature of primitive -speech.</p> - -<p>As we have seen above (Ch. XVII § <a href="#XVII_7">7</a>), a great many of the -changes going on regularly from century to century, as well as some -of the sudden changes which take place now and then in the -history of each language, result in the shortening of words. This -is seen everywhere and at all times, and in consequence of this -universal tendency we find that the ancient languages of our family, -Sanskrit, Zend, etc., abound in very long words; the further -back we go, the greater the number of <i>sesquipedalia</i>. We have -seen also how the current theory, according to which every language -started with monosyllabic roots, fails at every point to account -for actual facts and breaks down before the established truths of -linguistic history. Just as the history of religion does not pass<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_421" id="Page_421">[421]</a></span> -from the belief in one god to the belief in many gods, but inversely -from polytheism towards monotheism, so language proceeds from -original polysyllabism towards monosyllabism: if the development -of language took the same course in prehistoric as in historic times, -we see, by projecting the teaching of history on a larger scale back -into the darkest ages, that early words must have been to present -ones what the plesiosaurus and gigantosaurus are to present-day -reptiles. The outcome of this phonetic section is, therefore, that -we must imagine primitive language as consisting (chiefly at least) -of very long words, full of difficult sounds, and sung rather than -spoken.</p> - - -<h4>XXI.—§ 5. Grammar.</h4> - -<p>Can anything be stated about the grammar of primitive languages? -Yes, I think so, if we continue backwards into the past -the lines of evolution resulting from the investigations of previous -chapters of this volume. Ancient languages have more forms -than modern ones; forms originally kept distinct are in course -of time confused, either phonetically or analogically, alike in -substantives, adjectives and verbs.</p> - -<p>A characteristic feature of the structure of languages in their -early stages is that each form of a word (whether verb or noun) -contains in itself several minor modifications which, in the later -stages, are expressed separately (if at all), that is, by means of -auxiliary verbs or prepositions. Such a word as Latin <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">cantavisset</i> -unites in one inseparable whole the equivalents of six ideas: -(1) ‘sing,’ (2) pluperfect, (3) that indefinite modification of the -verbal idea which we term subjunctive, (4) active, (5) third person, -and (6) singular. The tendency of later stages is towards -expressing such modifications analytically; but if we accept the -terms ‘synthesis’ and ‘analysis’ for ancient and recent stages, -we must first realize that there exist many gradations of both: -in no single language do we find either synthesis or analysis carried -out with absolute purity and consistency. Everywhere we find -a more or less. Latin is synthetic in comparison with French, -French analytic in comparison with Latin; but if we were able -to see the direct ancestor of Latin, say two thousand years before -the earliest inscriptions, we should no doubt find a language so -synthetic that in comparison with it Cicero’s would have to be -termed highly analytic.</p> - -<p>Secondly, we must not from the term ‘synthesis,’ which etymologically -means ‘composition’ or ‘putting together,’ draw the -conclusion that synthetic forms, such as we find, for instance, in -Latin, consist of originally independent elements put together<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_422" id="Page_422">[422]</a></span> -and thus in their turn presuppose a previous stage of analysis. -Whoever does not share the usual opinion that all flexional forms -have originated through coalescence of separate words, but sees -as we have seen (in Ch. <a href="#CHAPTER_XIX">XIX</a>) also the reverse process of inseparable -portions of words gaining greater and greater independence, will -perhaps do well to look out for a better and less ambiguous word -than <i>synthesis</i> to describe the character of primitive speech. What -in the later stages of languages is analyzed or dissolved, in the earlier -stages was unanalyzable or indissoluble; ‘entangled’ or ‘complicated’ -would therefore be better renderings of our impression -of the first state of things.</p> - - -<h4>XXI.—§ 6. Units.</h4> - -<p>But are the old forms really less dissoluble than their modern -equivalents? This is repeatedly denied even by recent writers, -on whom my words in <cite>Progress</cite>, p. 117, cannot have made much -impression, if they have read them at all; and it will therefore -be necessary to take up this cardinal point. Let me begin with -quoting what others have said. “Historically considered, the -Latin <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">amat</i> is really two words, as much as its English representative, -the final <i>t</i> being originally a pronoun signifying ‘he,’ ‘she’ or -‘it,’ and it is only reasons of practical convenience that prevent -us from writing <i>am at</i> or <i>ama t</i> as two and <i>heloves</i> as one word.... -The really essential difference between <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">amat</i> and <i>he loves</i> is -that in the former the pronominal element is expressed by a suffix, -in the latter by a prefix” (Sweet PS 274, 1899). “It is purely -accidental that the Latin form is not written <i>am-av-it</i>. To the -unsophisticated Frenchman <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">il a aimé</i> is neither less nor more one -unit than <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">amavit</i> to a Roman.... When the locution <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">il a aimé</i> -sprang up, each element of it was still to some extent felt separately; -but after it had become a fixed formula the elements were fused -together into one whole. As a matter of fact, uneducated French -people have not the least idea whether it is one or three words -they speak” (Sütterlin WGS 11, 1902). “In some modern languages -the personal pronoun is, just as in archaic Greek, beginning -to be amalgamated with verbs so as to become a mere termination -(<i>sic</i>: <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">désinence</i>; prefix must be what is meant): Fr. <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">j’don’</i>, <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">tu-don’</i>, -<i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">il-don’</i> (<span lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">je donne, tu donnes, il donne</span>) and E. <i>i-giv’</i>, <i>we giv’</i>, <i>you-giv’</i>, -<i>they-giv’</i>, correspond exactly to Gr. <i>dido-mi</i>, <i>dido-si</i>, <i>dido-ti</i>, only -that the personal particle is in a different place” (Dauzat V 155, -1910). “If French were a savage language not yet reduced to -writing, a travelling linguist, hearing the present tense of the verb -<i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">aimer</i> pronounced by the natives, would transcribe it in the following -way: <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">jèm</i>, <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">tu èm</i>, <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">ilèm</i>, <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">nouzémon</i>, <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">vouzémé</i>, <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">ilzèm</i>. He would be<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_423" id="Page_423">[423]</a></span> -struck particularly with the agglutination of the pronominal -subject and the verb, and would never feel tempted to draw up -a paradigm without pronouns: <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">aime</i>, <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">aimes</i>, <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">aime</i>, <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">aimons</i>, etc., -in which traditional spelling makes us believe.... He would -even, through a comparison of <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">ilèm</i> and <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">ilzèm</i>, be led to establish -a tendency to incorporation, as the only sign of the plural is a <i>z</i> -infixed in the verbal complex” (Bally LV 43, 1913).</p> - -<p>In these utterances two questions are really mixed together, -that of the origin of Aryan flexional forms and that of the actual -status of some forms in various languages. As to the former -question, we have seen (p. <a href="#Page_383">383</a>) how very uncertain it is that <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">amat</i> -and <i>didosi</i>, etc., contain pronouns. As to the latter question, -it is quite true that we should not let the usual spelling be decisive -when it is asked whether we have one or two or three words; but -all these writers strangely overlook the really important criteria -which we possess in this matter. Bally’s traveller could only have -arrived at his result by listening to grammar lessons in which the -three persons of the verb were rattled off one after the other, for -if he had taken his forms from actual conversation he would have -come across numerous instances in which the forms occurred -without pronouns, first in the imperative, <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">aime</i>, <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">aimons</i>, <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">aimez</i>, then -in collocations like <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">celui qui aime</i>, <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">ceux qui aiment</i>, in which there -is no infix to denote the plural; in <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">le mari aime</i>, <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">les maris aiment</i>, -and innumerable similar groups there is neither pronoun nor infix. -If he were at first inclined to take <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">ilaaimé</i> as one word, he would -on further acquaintance with the language discover that the elements -were often separated: <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">il n’a pas aimé</i>, <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">il nous a toujours -aimés</i>, etc. Similarly with the English forms adduced: <i>I never -give</i>, <i>you always give</i>. This is the crucial point: the French and -English combinations are two (three) words because the elements -are not always placed together; Lat. <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">amat</i>, <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">amavit</i>, are each of -them only one word because they can never be divided, and in the -same way we never find anything placed between <i>am</i> and <i>o</i> in -the first person, <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">amo</i>. These forms are as inseparable as E. <i>loves</i>, -but E. <i>heloves</i> is separable because both <i>he</i> and <i>loves</i> can stand -alone, and can also, in certain combinations, though now rarely, -be transposed: <i>loves he</i>. Some writers would compare French -combinations like <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">il te le disait</i> with verbal forms in certain Amerindian -languages, in which subject and direct and indirect object -are alike ‘incorporated’ in a ‘polysynthetic’ verbal form; it is -quite true that these French pronominal forms can never be used -by themselves, but only in conjunction with a verb; still, the French -pronouns are more independent of each other than the elements -of some other more primitive languages. In the first place, this -is shown by the possibility of varying the pronunciation: <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">il te<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_424" id="Page_424">[424]</a></span> -le disait</i> may be either [itlədizɛ] or [itəldizɛ] or even more solemnly -[iltələdizɛ]; secondly, by the regularity of these joined pronominal -forms, for they are always the same, whatever the verb may be; -and lastly, by their changing places in certain cases: <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">te le disait-il?</i> -<i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">dis-le-lui</i>, etc.</p> - -<p>Nor can it be said that English forms like <i>he’s</i> = <i>he is</i> (or <i>he has</i>), -<i>I’d</i> = <i>I had</i> (or <i>I would</i>), <i>he’ll</i> = <i>he will</i> show a tendency towards -‘entangling,’ for however closely together these forms are generally -pronounced, each of them must be said to consist of two words, -as is shown by the possibility of transposition (Is he ill?) and of -intercalation of other words (I never had); it is also noteworthy -that the same short forms of the verbs can be added to all -kinds of words (the water’ll be ..., the sea’d been calm). In -the forms <i>don’t</i>, <i>won’t</i>, <i>can’t</i> there is something like amalgamation -of the verbal with the negative idea. Still, it is important -to notice that the amalgamation only takes place with a few -verbs of the auxiliary class. In saying ‘I don’t write’ the full -verb is not touched by the fusion, and is even allowed to be -unchanged in cases where it would have been inflected if no -auxiliary had been used; compare <i>I write</i>, <i>he writes</i>, <i>I wrote</i> with -the negative <i>I don’t write</i>, <i>he doesn’t write</i>, <i>I didn’t write</i>. It will -be seen, especially if we take into account the colloquial or vulgar -form for the third person, <i>he don’t write</i>, that the general movement -here as elsewhere is really rather in the direction of ‘isolation’ -than of fusion; for the verbal form <i>write</i> is stripped of all signs -of person and tense, the person being indicated separately (if at -all), and the tense sign being joined to the negation. So also in -interrogative sentences; and if that tendency which can be observed -in Elizabethan English had prevailed by using the combination -<i>I do write</i> in positive statements, even where no special emphasis -is intended, English verbs (except a few auxiliaries) would have -been entirely stripped of those elements which to most grammarians -constitute the very essence of a verb, namely, the marks -of person, number, tense and mood, <i>write</i> being the universal -form, besides the quasi-nominal forms <i>writing</i> and <i>written</i>.</p> - -<p>Now, it is often said that the history of language shows a sort -of gyration or movement in spirals, in which synthesis is followed -by analysis, this by a new synthesis (flexion), and this again by -analysis, and so forth. Latin <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">amabo</i> (which according to the old -theory was once <i>ama</i> + some auxiliary) has been succeeded by -<i lang="la" xml:lang="la">amare habeo</i>, which in its turn is fused into <i>amerò</i>, <i>aimerai</i>, and the -latter form is now to some extent giving way to <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">je vais aimer</i>. But -this pretended law of rotation is only arrived at by considering a -comparatively small number of phenomena, and not by viewing -the successive stages of the same language as wholes and drawing<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_425" id="Page_425">[425]</a></span> -general inferences as to their typically distinctive characters (cf. -above, p. <a href="#Page_337">337</a>). If for every two instances of new flexions springing -up we see ten older ones discarded in favour of analysis or isolation, -are we not entitled to the generalization that flexion or indissolubility -tends to give way to analysis? We should beware of being -under the same delusion as a man who, in walking over a mountainous -country, thinks that he goes down just as many and just -as long hills as he goes up, while on the contrary each ascent is -higher than the preceding descent, so that finally he finds himself -unexpectedly many thousand feet above the level from which -he started.</p> - -<p>The direction of movement is towards flexionless languages -(such as Chinese, or to a certain extent Modern English) with -freely combinable elements; the starting-point was flexional -languages (such as Latin or Greek); at a still earlier stage we must -suppose a language in which a verbal form might indicate not only -six things, like <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">cantavisset</i>, but a still larger number, in which verbs -were perhaps modified according to the gender (or sex) of the subject, -as they are in Semitic languages, or according to the object, -as in some Amerindian languages, or according to whether a man, -a woman, or a person who commands respect is spoken to, as in -Basque. But that amounts to the same thing as saying that the -border-line between word and sentence was not so clearly defined -as in more recent times; <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">cantavisset</i> is really nothing but a sentence-word, -and the same holds good to a still greater extent of the sound -conglomerations of Eskimo and some other North American languages. -Primitive linguistic units must have been much more -complicated in point of meaning, as well as much longer in point -of sound, than those with which we are most familiar.</p> - - -<h4>XXI.—§ 7. Irregularities.</h4> - -<p>Another point of great importance is this: in early languages -we find a far greater number of irregularities, exceptions, anomalies, -than in modern ones. It is true that we not unfrequently see new -irregularities spring up, where the formations were formerly -regular; but these instances are very far from counterbalancing -the opposite class, in which words once irregularly inflected become -regular, or are given up in favour of regularly inflected words, -or in which anomalies in syntax are levelled. The tendency is -more and more to denote the same thing by the same means in -every case, to extend the ending, or whatever it is, that is used in -a large class of words to express a certain modification of the central -idea, until it is used in all other words as well.</p> - -<p>Comparative linguistics did not attain a scientific character<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_426" id="Page_426">[426]</a></span> -till the principle was established that the relationship of two languages -had to be determined by a thoroughgoing conformity in -the most necessary parts of language, namely (besides grammar -proper) pronouns and numerals and the most indispensable of -nouns and verbs. But if this domain of speech, by preserving -religiously, as it were, the old tradition, affords infallible criteria -of the near or remote relationship of different languages, may we -not reasonably expect to find in the same domain some clue to the -oldest grammatical system used by our ancestors? What sort -of system, then, do we find there? We see such a declension as -<i>I</i>, <i>me</i>, <i>we</i>, <i>us</i>: the several forms of the ‘paradigm’ do not at all -resemble each other, as they do in more recently developed declensions. -We find masculines and feminines, such as <i>father</i>, <i>mother</i>, -<i>man</i>, <i>wife</i>, <i>bull</i>, <i>cow</i>; while such methods of derivation as are seen -in <i>count</i>, <i>countess</i>, <i>he-bear</i>, <i>she-bear</i>, belong to a later time. We -meet with degrees of comparison like <i>good</i>, <i>better</i>, <i>ill</i>, <i>worse</i>, while -regular forms like <i>happy</i>, <i>happier</i>, <i>big</i>, <i>bigger</i>, prevail in all the -younger strata of languages. We meet with verbal flexion such -as appears in <i>am</i>, <i>is</i>, <i>was</i>, <i>been</i>, which forms a striking contrast -to the more modern method of adding a mere ending while leaving -the body of the word unchanged. In an interesting book, <cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Vom -Suppletivwesen der indogermanischen Sprachen</cite> (1899), H. Osthoff -has collected a very great number of examples from the old Aryan -languages of different stems supplementing each other, and has -pointed out that this phenomenon is characteristic of the most -necessary ideas occurring every moment in ordinary conversation: -I take at random a few of the best-known of his examples: Fr. -<i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">aller</i>, <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">je vais</i>, <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">j’irai</i>, Lat. <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">fero</i>, <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">tuli</i>, Gr. <i>horaō</i>, <i>opsomai</i>, <i>eidon</i>, Lat. -<i lang="la" xml:lang="la">bonus</i>, <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">melior</i>, <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">optimus</i>. Osthoff fully agrees with me that we have -here a trait of primitive psychology: our remote ancestors were -not able to see and to express what was common to these ideas; -their minds were very unsystematic, and separated in their linguistic -expressions things which from a logical point of view are -closely related: much of their grammar, therefore, was really of -a lexical character.</p> - - -<h4>XXI.—§ 8. Savage Tribes.</h4> - -<p>If now it is asked whether the conclusions we have thus arrived -at are borne out by a consideration of the languages of savage -or primitive races nowadays, the answer is that these cannot be -lumped together; there are among them many different types, -even with regard to grammatical structure. But the more these -languages are studied and the more accurately their structure is -described, the more also students perceive intricacies and anomalies<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_427" id="Page_427">[427]</a></span> -in their grammar. Gabelentz (Spr 386) says that the casual -observer has no idea how manifold and how nicely circumscribed -grammatical categories can be, even in the seemingly crudest languages, -for ordinary grammars tell us nothing about that. P. W. -Schmidt (<cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Die Stellung der Pygmäenvölker</cite>, 1910, 129) says that -whoever, from the low culture of the Andamanese, would expect -to find their language very simple and poor in expressions would -be strangely deceived, for its mechanism is highly complicated, -with many prefixes and suffixes, which often conceal the root itself. -Meinhof (MSA 136) mentions the multiplicity of plural formations -in African languages. Vilhelm Thomsen, in speaking of the Santhal -(Khervarian) language, says that its grammar is capable of expressing -a multiplicity of <i>nuances</i> which in other languages must be -expressed by clumsy circumlocutions; the native speakers go -beyond what is necessary through requiring expressions for many -subordinate notions, the language having, so to speak, only one -fine gold-balance, on which everything, even the simplest and -commonest things, must be weighed by the adding-up of a whole -series of minutiæ. Curr speaks about the erroneous belief in the -simplicity of Australian languages, which on the contrary have -a great number of conjugations, etc. The extreme difficulty and -complex structure of Eskimo and of many Amerindian languages -is so notorious that no words need be wasted on them here. And -the forms of the Basque verb are so manifold and intricate that we -understand how Larramendi, in his legitimate pride at having -been the first to reduce them to a system, called his grammar -<cite lang="es" xml:lang="es">El Imposible Vencido</cite>, ‘The Impossible Overcome.’ At Béarn -they have the story that the good God, wishing to punish the devil -for the temptation of Eve, sent him to the Pays Basque with the -command that he should remain there till he had mastered the language. -At the end of seven years God relented, finding the punishment -too severe, and called the devil to him. The devil had no -sooner crossed the bridge of Castelondo than he found he had forgotten -all that he had so hardly learned.</p> - -<p>What is here said about the languages of wild tribes (and of -the Basques, who are not exactly savages, but whose language -is generally taken to have retained many primeval traits) is in -exact keeping with everything that recent study of primitive -man has brought to light: the life of the savage is regulated to the -minutest details through ceremonies and conventionalities to be -observed on every and any occasion; he is restricted in what he -may eat and drink and when and how; and all these, to our mind, -irrational prescriptions and innumerable prohibitions have to be -observed with the most scrupulous, nay religious, care: it is the -same with all the meticulous rules of his language.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_428" id="Page_428">[428]</a></span></p> - - -<h4>XXI.—§ 9. Law of Development.</h4> - -<p>So far, then, from subscribing to Whitney’s dictum that “the -law of simplicity of beginnings applies to language not less naturally -and necessarily than to other instrumentalities” (G 226), -we are drawn to the conclusion that primitive language had a superabundance -of irregularities and anomalies, in syntax and word-formation -no less than in accidence. It was capricious and fanciful, -and displayed a luxuriant growth of forms, entangled one with -another like the trees in a primeval forest. “<span lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Rien n’entre mieux -dans les esprits grossiers que les subtilités des langues</span>” (Tarde, -<cite lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Lois de l’imitation</cite> 285). Human minds in the early times disported -themselves in long and intricate words as in the wildest -and most wanton play. Nothing could be more beside the mark -than to suppose that grammatical and logical categories were in -primitive languages generally in harmony (as is supposed, e.g., by -Sweet, <cite>New Engl. Grammar</cite> § 543): primitive speech cannot have -been distinguished for logical consistency; nor, so far as we -can judge, was it simple and facile: it is much more likely -to have been extremely clumsy and unwieldy. Renan rightly -reminds us of Turgot’s wise saying: “<span lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Des hommes grossiers ne -font rien de simple. Il faut des hommes perfectionnés pour y -arriver.</span>”</p> - -<p>We have seen in earlier chapters that the old theory of the -three stages through which human language was supposed always -to proceed, isolation, agglutination and flexion, was built up -on insufficient materials; but while we feel tempted totally to -reverse this system, we must be on our guard against establishing -too rigid and too absolute a system ourselves. It would not do -simply to reverse the order and say that flexion is the oldest stage, -from which language tends through an agglutinative stage towards -complete isolation, for flexion, agglutination and isolation do not -include all possible structural types of speech. The possibilities -of development are so manifold, and there are such innumerable -ways of arriving at more or less adequate expressions for human -thought, that it is next to impossible to compare languages of -different families. Even, therefore, if it is probable that English, -Finnish and Chinese are all simplifications of more complex languages, -we cannot say that Chinese, for instance, at one time -resembled English in structure and at some other time Finnish. -English was once a flexional language, and is still so in some -respects, while in others it is agglutinative, and in others again -isolating, or nearly so. But we may perhaps give the following -formula of what is our total impression of the whole preceding -inquiry:</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_429" id="Page_429">[429]</a></span></p> - -<p><span class="smcap">The evolution of language shows a progressive tendency -from inseparable irregular conglomerations to -freely and regularly combinable short elements.</span></p> - -<p>The old system of historical linguistics may be likened to an -enormous pyramid; only it is a pity that it should have as its -base the small, square, strong, smart root word, and suspended -above it the unwieldy, lumbering, ill-proportioned, flexion-encumbered -sentence-vocable. Structures of this sort may with some -adroitness be made to stand; but their equilibrium is unstable, -and sooner or later they will inevitably tumble over.</p> - - -<h4>XXI.—§ 10. Vocabulary.</h4> - -<p>On the lexical side of language we find a development parallel -to that noticed in grammar; and, indeed, if we go deep enough -into the question, we shall see that it is really the very same -movement that has taken place. The more advanced a language -is, the more developed is its power of expressing abstract or -general ideas. Everywhere language has first attained to expressions -for the concrete and special. In accounts of the languages -of barbarous races we constantly come across such phrases as -these: “The aborigines of Tasmania had no words representing -abstract ideas; for each variety of gum-tree and wattle-tree, -etc., they had a name; but they had no equivalent for the -expression ‘a tree’; neither could they express abstract qualities, -such as ‘hard, soft, warm, cold, long, short, round’”; or, -The Mohicans have words for cutting various objects, but none -to convey <i>cutting</i> simply. The Zulus have no word for ‘cow,’ -but words for ‘red cow,’ ‘white cow,’ etc. (Sayce S 2. 5, cf. -1. 121). In Bakaïri (Central Brazil) “each parrot has its special -name, and the general idea ‘parrot’ is totally unknown, as well -as the general idea ‘palm.’ But they know precisely the qualities -of each subspecies of parrot and palm, and attach themselves so -much to these numerous particular notions that they take no interest -in the common characteristics. They are choked in the abundance -of the material and cannot manage it economically. They have -only small coin, but in that they must be said to be excessively -rich rather than poor” (K. v. d. Steinen, <cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Unter den Naturvölkern -Brasiliens</cite>, 1894, 81). The Lithuanians, like many primitive -tribes, have many special, but no common names for various -colours: one word for gray in speaking about wool and geese, -one about horses, one about cattle, one about the hair of men and -some animals, and in the same way for other colours (J. Schmidt, -<cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Kritik d. Sonantentheorie</cite> 37). Many languages have no word -for ‘brother,’ but words for ‘elder brother’ and ‘younger brother’;<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_430" id="Page_430">[430]</a></span> -others have different words according to whose (person and number) -father or brother it is (see, e.g., the paradigm in Gabelentz Spr 421), -and the same applies in many languages to names for various -parts of the body. In Cherokee, instead of one word for ‘washing’ -we find different words, according to what is washed: <i lang="chr" xml:lang="chr">kutuwo</i> -‘I wash myself,’ <i lang="chr" xml:lang="chr">kulestula</i> ‘I wash my head,’ <i lang="chr" xml:lang="chr">tsestula</i> ‘I wash -the head of somebody else,’ <i lang="chr" xml:lang="chr">kukuswo</i> ‘I wash my face,’ <i lang="chr" xml:lang="chr">tsekuswo</i> -‘I wash the face of somebody else,’ <i lang="chr" xml:lang="chr">takasula</i> ‘I wash my hands -or feet,’ <i lang="chr" xml:lang="chr">takunkela</i> ‘I wash my clothes,’ <i lang="chr" xml:lang="chr">takutega</i> ‘I wash dishes,’ -<i lang="chr" xml:lang="chr">tsejuwu</i> ‘I wash a child,’ <i lang="chr" xml:lang="chr">kowela</i> ‘I wash meat’ (see, however, the -criticism of Hewitt, <cite>Am. Anthropologist</cite>, 1893, 398). Primitive -man did not see the wood for the trees.<a name="FNanchor_108_108" id="FNanchor_108_108"></a><a href="#Footnote_108_108" class="fnanchor">[108]</a></p> - -<p>In some Amerindian languages there are distinct series of -numerals for various classes of objects; thus in Kwakiatl and -Tsimoshian (Sapir, <cite>Language and Environment</cite> 239); similarly -the Melanesians have special words to denote a definite number -of certain objects, e.g. <i>a buku niu</i> ‘two coconuts,’ <i>a buru</i> ‘ten -coconuts,’ <i>a koro</i> ‘a hundred coconuts,’ <i>a selavo</i> ‘a thousand -coconuts,’ <i>a uduudu</i> ‘ten canoes,’ <i>a bola</i> ‘ten fishes,’ etc. (Gabelentz, -<cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Die melan. Spr.</cite> 1. 23). In some languages the numerals -are the same for all classes of objects counted, but require after -them certain class-denoting words varying according to the -character of the objects (in some respects comparable to the -English twenty <i>head</i> of cattle, Pidgin <i>piecey</i>; cf. Yule and -Burnell, Hobson-Jobson s.v. Numerical Affixes). This reminds -one of the systems of weights and measures, which even in -civilized countries up to a comparatively recent period varied -not only from country to country, sometimes even from district -to district, but even in the same country according to the -things weighed or measured (in England <i>stone</i> and <i>ton</i> still vary -in this way).</p> - -<p>In old Gothonic poetry we find an astonishing abundance of -words translated in our dictionaries by ‘sea,’ ‘battle,’ ‘sword,’ -‘hero,’ and the like: these may certainly be considered as relics -of an earlier state of things, in which each of these words had its -separate shade of meaning, which was subsequently lost and which -it is impossible now to determine with certainty. The nomenclature -of a remote past was undoubtedly constructed upon similar -principles to those which are still preserved in a word-group like -<i>horse</i>, <i>mare</i>, <i>stallion</i>, <i>foal</i>, <i>colt</i>, instead of he-horse, she-horse, young -horse, etc. This sort of grouping has only survived in a few cases -in which a lively interest has been felt in the objects or animals -concerned. We may note, however, the different terms employed<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_431" id="Page_431">[431]</a></span> -for essentially the same idea in a <i>flock</i> of sheep, a <i>pack</i> of wolves, -a <i>herd</i> of cattle, a <i>bevy</i> of larks, a <i>covey</i> of partridges, a <i>shoal</i> of -fish. Primitive language could show a far greater number of -instances of this description, and, so far, had a larger vocabulary -than later languages, though, of course, it lacked names for a -great number of ideas that were outside the sphere of interest -of uncivilized people.</p> - -<p>There was another reason for the richness of the vocabulary -of primitive man: his superstition about words, which made -him avoid the use of certain words under certain circumstances—during -war, when out fishing, during the time of the great cultic -festivals, etc.—because he feared the anger of gods or demons -if he did not religiously observe the rules of the linguistic tabu. -Accordingly, in many cases he had two or more sets of words for -exactly the same notions, of which later generations as a rule -preserved only one, unless they differentiated these words by -utilizing them to discriminate objects that were similar but not -identical.</p> - - -<h4>XXI.—§ 11. Poetry and Prose.</h4> - -<p>On the whole the development of languages, even in the matter -of vocabulary, must be considered to have taken a beneficial course; -still, in certain respects one may to some extent regret the consequences -of this evolution. While our words are better adapted -to express abstract things and to render concrete things with -definite precision, they are necessarily comparatively colourless. -The old words, on the contrary, spoke more immediately to the -senses—they were manifestly more suggestive, more graphic and -pictorial: while to express one single thing we are not unfrequently -obliged to piece the image together bit by bit, the old concrete -words would at once present it to the hearer’s mind as a whole; -they were, accordingly, better adapted to poetic purposes. Nor -is this the only point in which we see a close relationship between -primitive words and poetry.</p> - -<p>If by a mental effort we transport ourselves to a period in -which language consisted solely of such graphic concrete words, -we shall discover that, in spite of their number, they would not -suffice, taken all together, to cover everything that needed expression; -a wealth in such words is not incompatible with a -certain poverty. They would accordingly often be required to -do service outside of their proper sphere of application. That a -figurative or metaphorical use of words is a factor of the utmost -importance in the life of all languages is indisputable; but I -am probably right in thinking that it played a more prominent<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_432" id="Page_432">[432]</a></span> -part in old times than now. In the course of ages a great many -metaphors have lost their freshness and vividness, so that nobody -feels them to be metaphors any longer. Examine closely such a -sentence as this: “He <i>came</i> to <i>look upon</i> the low <i>ebb</i> of morals -as an <i>outcome</i> of bad <i>taste</i>,” and you will find that nearly every -word is a dead metaphor.<a name="FNanchor_109_109" id="FNanchor_109_109"></a><a href="#Footnote_109_109" class="fnanchor">[109]</a> But the better stocked a language -is with those ex-metaphors which have become regular expressions -for definite ideas, the less need there is for going out of one’s way -to find new metaphors. The expression of thought therefore -tends to become more and more mechanical or prosaic.</p> - -<p>Primitive man, however, on account of the nature of his language, -was constantly reduced to using words and phrases figuratively: -he was forced to express his thoughts in the language of poetry. -The speech of modern savages is often spoken of as abounding -in similes and all kinds of figurative phrases and allegorical -expressions. Just as in the literature transmitted to us poetry -is found in every country to precede prose, so poetic language -is on the whole older than prosaic language; lyrics and cult songs -come before science, and Oehlenschläger is right when he sings -(in N. Møller’s translation):</p> - -<div class="poetry-container"><div class="poetry"><div class="stanza"> - <div class="verse">Thus Nature drove us; warbling rose</div> - <div class="verse">Man’s voice in verse before he spoke in prose.</div> -</div></div></div> - - -<h4>XXI.—§ 12. Emotional Songs.</h4> - -<p>If we now try to sum up what has been inferred about primitive -speech, we see that by our backward march we arrived at -a language whose units had a very meagre substance of thought, -and this as specialized and concrete as possible; but at the same -time the phonetic body was ample; and the bigger and longer -the words, the thinner the thoughts! Much cry and little wool! -No period has seen less taciturn people than the first framers of -speech; primitive speakers were not reticent and reserved beings, -but youthful men and women babbling merrily on, without being -so very particular about the meaning of each word. They did -not narrowly weigh every syllable—what were a couple of syllables -more or less to them? They chattered away for the mere pleasure -of chattering, resembling therein many a mother of our own time, -who will chatter away to baby without measuring her words or -looking too closely into the meaning of each; nay, who is not -a bit troubled by the consideration that the little deary does not -understand a single word of her affectionate eloquence. But<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_433" id="Page_433">[433]</a></span> -primitive speech—and we return here to an idea thrown out above—still -more resembles the speech of little baby himself, before he -begins to frame his own language after the pattern of the grown-ups; -the language of our remote forefathers was like that ceaseless -humming and crooning with which no thoughts are as yet connected, -which merely amuses and delights the little one. Language -originated as play, and the organs of speech were first trained in -this singing sport of idle hours.</p> - -<p>Primitive language had no great store of ideas, and if we consider -it as an instrument for expressing thoughts, it was clumsy, unwieldy -and ineffectual; but what did that matter? Thoughts -were not the first things to press forward and crave for expression; -emotions and instincts were more primitive and far -more powerful. But what emotions were most powerful in producing -germs of speech? To be sure not hunger and that which -is connected with hunger: mere individual self-assertion and -the struggle for material existence. This prosaic side of life was -only capable of calling forth short monosyllabic interjections, -howls of pain and grunts of satisfaction or dissatisfaction; but -these are isolated and incapable of much further development; -they are the most immutable portions of language, and remain -now at essentially the same standpoint as thousands of years ago.</p> - -<p>If after spending some time over the deep metaphysical speculations -of a number of German linguistic philosophers you turn to -men like Madvig and Whitney, you are at once agreeably impressed -by the sobriety of their reasoning and their superior clearness -of thought. But if you look more closely, you cannot help thinking -that they imagine our primitive ancestors after their own image -as serious and well-meaning men endowed with a large share of -common-sense. By their laying such great stress on the communication -of thought as the end of language and on the benefit -to primitive man of being able to speak to his fellow-creatures -about matters of vital importance, they leave you with the impression -that these “first framers of speech” were sedate citizens -with a strong interest in the purely business and matter-of-fact -side of life; indeed, according to Madvig, women had no share -in the creating of language.</p> - -<p>In opposition to this rationalistic view I should like, for once -in a way, to bring into the field the opposite view: the genesis -of language is not to be sought in the prosaic, but in the poetic -side of life; the source of speech is not gloomy seriousness, but -merry play and youthful hilarity. And among the emotions -which were most powerful in eliciting outbursts of music and of -song, love must be placed in the front rank. To the feeling of love, -which has left traces of its vast influence on countless points in<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_434" id="Page_434">[434]</a></span> -the evolution of organic nature, are due not only, as Darwin has -shown, the magnificent colours of birds and flowers, but also many -of the things that fill us with joy in human life; it inspired many -of the first songs, and through them was instrumental in bringing -about human language. In primitive speech I hear the laughing -cries of exultation when lads and lasses vied with one another -to attract the attention of the other sex, when everybody sang -his merriest and danced his bravest to lure a pair of eyes to throw -admiring glances in his direction. Language was born in the -courting days of mankind; the first utterances of speech I fancy -to myself like something between the nightly love-lyrics of puss -upon the tiles and the melodious love-songs of the nightingale.<a name="FNanchor_110_110" id="FNanchor_110_110"></a><a href="#Footnote_110_110" class="fnanchor">[110]</a></p> - - -<h4>XXI.—§ 13. Primitive Singing.</h4> - -<p>Love, however, was not the only feeling which tended to call -forth primitive songs. Any strong emotion, and more particularly -any pleasurable excitement, might result in song. Singing, like -any other sort of play, is due to an overflow of energy, which is -discharged in “unusual vivacity of every kind, including vocal -vivacity.” Out of the full heart the mouth sings! Savages -will sing whenever they are excited: exploits of war or of the -chase, the deeds of their ancestors, the coming of a fat dog, any -incident “from the arrival of a stranger to an earthquake” is -turned into a song; and most of these songs are composed extem<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_435" id="Page_435">[435]</a></span>pore. -“When rowing, the Coast negroes sing either a description -of some love intrigue or the praise of some woman celebrated for her -beauty.” The Malays beguile all their leisure hours with the -repetition of songs, etc. “In singing, the East African contents -himself with improvising a few words without sense or rime and -repeats them till they nauseate.” (These quotations, and many -others, are found in Herbert Spencer’s <cite>Essay on the Origin of -Music</cite>, with his Postscript.) The reader of Karl Bücher’s painstaking -work <cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Arbeit und Rhythmus</cite> (2te aufl. 1899) will know from -his numerous examples and illustrations what an enormous rôle -rhythmic singing plays in the daily life of savages all over the -world, how each kind of work, especially if it is done by many -jointly, has its own kind of song, and how nothing is done except -to the sound of vocal music. In many instances savages are -mentioned as very expert in adapting the subjects of their songs -to current events. Nor is this sort of singing on every and any -occasion confined to savages; it is found wherever the indoor -life of civilization has not killed all open-air hilarity; formerly -in our Western Europe people sang much more than they do now. -The Swedish peasant Jonas Stolt (ab. 1820) writes: “I have -known a time when young people were singing from morning till -eve. Then they were carolling both out- and indoors, behind the -plough as well as at the threshing-floor and at the spinning-wheel. -This is all over long ago: nowadays there is silence everywhere; -if someone were to try and sing in our days as we did of old, people -would term it bawling.”</p> - -<p>The first things that were expressed in song were, to be sure, -neither deep nor wise; how could you expect it? Note the -frequency with which we are told that the songs of savages consist -of or contain totally meaningless syllables. Thus we read about -American Indians that “the native word which is translated -‘song’ does not suggest any use of words. To the Indian, the -music is of primal importance; words may or may not accompany -the music. When words are used in song, they are rarely employed -as a narrative, the sentences are not apt to be complete” (Louise -Pound, Mod. Lang. Ass. 32. 224), and similarly: “Even where -the slightest vestiges of epic poetry are missing, lyric poetry of -one form or another is always present. It may consist of the -musical use of meaningless syllables that sustain the song; or -it may consist largely of such syllables, with a few interspersed -words suggesting certain ideas and certain feelings; or it may -rise to the expression of emotions connected with warlike deeds, -with religious feeling, love, or even to the praise of the beauties of -nature” (Boas, <cite>International Journ. Amer. Ling.</cite> 1. 8). The -magic incantations of the Greenland Eskimo, according to<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_436" id="Page_436">[436]</a></span> -W. Thalbitzer, contain many incomprehensible words never used -outside these songs (but have they ever been real words?), and -the same is said about the mystic religious formulas of Maoris -and African negroes and many other tribes, as well as about the -old Roman hymns of the Arval Brethren. The mere joy in sonorous -combinations here no doubt counts for very much, as in the -splendid but meaningless metrical lists of names in the Old -Norse Edda, and in many a modern refrain, too. Let me give -one example of half (or less than half) understood strings of -syllables from “The Oath of the Canting Crew” (1749, Farmer’s -<cite lang="la" xml:lang="la">Musa Pedestris</cite>, 51):</p> - -<div class="poetry-container"><div class="poetry"><div class="stanza"> - <div class="verse">No dimber, dambler, angler, dancer,</div> - <div class="verse">Prig of cackler, prig of prancer;</div> - <div class="verse">No swigman, swaddler, clapper-dudgeon,</div> - <div class="verse">Cadge-gloak, curtal, or curmudgeon;</div> - <div class="verse">No whip-jack, palliard, patrico;</div> - <div class="verse">No jarkman, be he high or low;</div> - <div class="verse">No dummerar or romany ...</div> - <div class="verse">Nor any other will I suffer.</div> -</div></div></div> - -<p>In the cultic and ceremonial songs of savage tribes in many -parts of the world this is a prominent trait: it seems, indeed, -to be universal. Even with us the thoughts associated with -singing are generally neither very clear nor very abstruse; like -humming or whistling, singing is often nothing more than an -almost automatic outcome of a mood; and “What is not worth -saying can be sung.” Besides, it has been the case at all times -that things transient and trivial have found readier expression -than Socratic wisdom. But the frivolous use tuned the instrument, -and rendered it little by little more serviceable to a multiplicity -of purposes, so that it became more and more fitted to express -everything that touched human souls.</p> - -<p>Men sang out their feelings long before they were able to speak -their thoughts. But of course we must not imagine that “singing” -means exactly the same thing here as in a modern concert hall. -When we say that speech originated in song, what we mean is -merely that our comparatively monotonous spoken language and -our highly developed vocal music are differentiations of primitive -utterances, which had more in them of the latter than of the -former. These utterances were at first, like the singing of birds -and the roaring of many animals and the crying and crooning -of babies, exclamative, not communicative—that is, they came -forth from an inner craving of the individual without any thought -of any fellow-creatures. Our remote ancestors had not the slightest -notion that such a thing as communicating ideas and feelings to -someone else was possible. They little suspected that in singing<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_437" id="Page_437">[437]</a></span> -as nature prompted them they were paving the way for a -language capable of rendering minute shades of thought; just -as they could not suspect that out of their coarse pictures of -men and animals there should one day grow an art enabling men -of distant countries to speak to one another. As is the art of -writing to primitive painting, so is the art of speaking to primitive -singing. And the development of the two vehicles of communication -of thought presents other curious and instructive -parallels. In primitive picture-writing, each sign meant a whole -sentence or even more—the image of a situation or of an incident -being given as a whole; this developed into an ideographic -writing of each word by itself; this system was succeeded by -syllabic methods, which had in their turn to give place to alphabetic -writing, in which each letter stands for, or is meant to -stand for, one sound. Just as here the advance is due to a further -analysis of language, smaller and smaller units of speech being -progressively represented by single signs, in an exactly similar -way, though not quite so unmistakably, the history of language -shows us a progressive tendency towards analyzing into smaller -and smaller units that which in the earlier stages was taken as an -inseparable whole.</p> - -<p>One point must be constantly kept in mind. Although we -now regard the communication of thought as the main object -of speaking, there is no reason for thinking that this has always -been the case; it is perfectly possible that speech has developed -from something which had no other purpose than that of exercising -the muscles of the mouth and throat and of amusing oneself and -others by the production of pleasant or possibly only strange -sounds. The motives for uttering sounds may have changed -entirely in the course of centuries without the speakers being at any -point conscious of this change within them.</p> - - -<h4>XXI.—§ 14. Approach to Language.</h4> - -<p>We get the first approach to language proper when communicativeness -takes precedence of exclamativeness, when sounds -are uttered in order to ‘tell’ fellow-creatures something, as -when birds warn their young ones of some imminent danger. In -the case of human language, communication is infinitely more -full and rich and elaborate; the question therefore is a very -complex one: How did the association of sound and sense come -about? How did that which originally was a jingle of meaningless -sounds come to be an instrument of thought? How did man -become, as Humboldt has somewhere defined him, “a singing -creature, only associating thoughts with the tones”?</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_438" id="Page_438">[438]</a></span></p> - -<p>In the case of an onomatopoetic or echo-word like <i>bow-wow</i> -and an interjection like <i>pooh-pooh</i> the association was easy and -direct; such words were at once employed and understood as -signs for the corresponding idea. But this was not the case with -the great bulk of language. Here association of sound with sense -must have been arrived at by devious and circuitous ways, which -to a great extent evade inquiry and make a detailed exposition -impossible. But this is in exact conformity with very much -that has taken place in recent periods; as we have learnt in previous -chapters, it is only by indirect and roundabout ways that many -words and grammatical expedients have acquired the meanings -they now have, or have acquired meaning where they originally -had none. Let me remind the reader of the word <i>grog</i> (p. <a href="#Page_308">308</a>), -of interrogative particles (p. <a href="#Page_358">358</a>), of word order (p. <a href="#Page_356">356</a>), of -many endings (Ch. XIX § <a href="#XIX_13">13</a> ff.), of tones (Ch. XIX § <a href="#XIX_5">5</a>), of the -French negative <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">pas</i>, of vowel-alternations like those in <i>drink</i>, -<i>drank</i>, <i>drunk</i>, or in <i>foot</i>, <i>feet</i>, etc. Language is a complicated -affair, and no more than most other human inventions has it -come about in a simple way: mankind has not moved in a -straight line towards a definitely perceived goal, but has muddled -along from moment to moment and has thereby now and then -stumbled on some happy expedient which has then been retained -in accordance with the principle of the survival of the fittest.</p> - -<p>We may perhaps succeed in forming some idea of the most -primitive process of associating sound and sense if we call to mind -what was said above on the signification of the earliest words, -and try to fathom what that means. The first words must have -been as concrete and specialized in meaning as possible. Now, -what are the words whose meaning is the most concrete and the -most specialized? Without any doubt proper names—that is, -of course, proper names of the good old kind, borne by and denoting -only one single individual. How easily might not such names -spring up in a primitive state such as that described above! -In the songs of a particular individual there would be a constant -recurrence of a particular series of sounds sung with a particular -cadence; no one can doubt the possibility of such individual -habits being contracted in olden as well as in present times. -Suppose, then, that “in the spring time, the only pretty ring -time” a lover was in the habit of addressing his lass “with a hey, -and a ho, and a hey nonino.” His comrades and rivals would -not fail to remark this, and would occasionally banter him by -imitating and repeating his “hey-and-a-ho-and-a-hey-nonino.” -But when once this had been recognized as what Wagner would -term a person’s ‘leitmotiv,’ it would be no far cry from mimicking -it to using the “hey-and-a-ho-and-a-hey-nonino” as a sort of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_439" id="Page_439">[439]</a></span> -nickname for the man concerned; it might be employed, for -instance, to signal his arrival. And when once proper names -had been bestowed, common names (or nouns) would not be slow -in following; we see the transition from one to the other class in -constant operation, names originally used exclusively to denote -an individual being used metaphorically to connote that person’s -most characteristic peculiarities, as when we say of one man that -he is a ‘Crœsus’ or a ‘Vanderbilt’ or ‘Rockefeller,’ and of -another that he is ‘no Bismarck.’ A German schoolboy in -the ’eighties said in his history lesson that Hannibal swore he -would always be a <i>Frenchman</i> to the Romans. This is, at least, -one of the ways in which language arrives at designations of such -ideas as ‘rich,’ ‘statesman’ and ‘enemy.’ From the proper -name of <i>Cæsar</i> we have both the Russian <i>tsar’</i> and the German -<i lang="de" xml:lang="de">kaiser</i>, and from <i>Karol</i> (Charlemagne) Russian <i>korol’</i> ‘king’ -(also in the other Slav languages) and Magyar <i lang="hu" xml:lang="hu">király</i>. Besides -being designations for persons, proper names may also in some -cases come to mean tools or other objects, originally in most cases -probably as a term of endearment, as when in thieves’ slang a -crowbar or lever is called a <i>betty</i> or <i>jemmy</i>; E. <i>derrick</i> and <i>dirk</i>, -as well as G. <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">dietrich</i>, Dan. <i lang="da" xml:lang="da">dirk</i>, Swed. <i lang="sv" xml:lang="sv">dyrk</i>, is nothing but -<i>Dietrich</i> (<i>Derrick</i>, <i>Theodoricus</i>), and thus in innumerable instances. -In the <span lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">École polytechnique</span> in Paris there are many words of the -same character: <i>bacha</i> ‘<span lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">cours d’allemand</span>’ from a teacher, M. -Bacharach, <i>borius</i> ‘<span lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bretelles</span>’ from General Borius, <i>malo</i> ‘<span lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">éperon</span>’ -from Captain Malo, etc. (MSL 15. 179). <i>Pamphlet</i> is from Pamphilet, -originally <cite>Pamphilus seu de Amore</cite>, the name of a popular -booklet on an erotic subject. Compare also the history of the -words <i>bluchers</i>, <i>jack</i> (boot-jack, jack for turning a spit, a pike, etc., -also <i>jacket</i>), <i>pantaloon</i>, <i>hansom</i>, <i>boycott</i>, <i>to burke</i>, to name only -a few of the best-known examples.</p> - - -<h4>XXI.—§ 15. The Earliest Sentences.</h4> - -<p>Again, we saw above that the further back we went in the -history of known languages, the more the sentence was one indissoluble -whole, in which those elements which we are accustomed -to think of as single words were not yet separated. Now, the -idea that language began with sentences, not with words, appears -to Whitney (<cite>Am. Journ. of Philol.</cite> 1. 338) to be, “if capable of -any intelligent and intelligible statement, <i>a fortiori</i>, too wild and -baseless to deserve respectful mention” (cf. also Madvig Kl 85). -But the absurdity appears only if we think of sentences like those -found in our languages, consisting of elements (words) capable -of being used in other combinations and there forming other<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_440" id="Page_440">[440]</a></span> -sentences: this seems to be what Gabelentz (Spr 351) imagines; -but it is not so wild to imagine as the first beginning something -which can be <em>translated</em> into our languages by means of a sentence, -but which is not ‘articulated’ in the same way as such a sentence; -we translate or explain the dental click (‘<i>tut</i>’) by means of the -sentence ‘that is a pity,’ but the interjection is not in other -respects a grammatical ‘sentence.’ Or we may take an illustration -from the modern use of a telegraphic code: if <i>suzaw</i> means ‘I -have not received your telegram,’ or <i>sempo</i> ‘reserve one single -room and bath at first-class hotel’—we have unanalyzable wholes -capable of being rendered in complete sentences, but not in every -way analogous to these sentences.</p> - -<p>Now, it is just units of this character (though not, of course, -with exactly the same kind of meaning as the two code words) -whose genesis we can most easily imagine on the supposition of -a primitive period of meaningless singing. If a certain number -of people have together witnessed some incident and have -accompanied it with some sort of impromptu song or refrain, the -two ideas are associated, and later on the same song will tend to -call forth in the memory of those who were present the idea of the -whole situation. Suppose some dreaded enemy has been defeated -and slain; the troop will dance round the dead body and strike -up a chant of triumph, say something like ‘Tarara-boom-de-ay!’ -This combination of sounds, sung to a certain melody, will now -easily become what might be called a proper name for that particular -event; it might be roughly translated, ‘The terrible foe from -beyond the river is slain,’ or ‘We have killed the dreadful man -from beyond the river,’ or, ‘Do you remember when we killed -him?’ or something of the same sort. Under slightly altered -circumstances it may become the proper name of the man who -slew the enemy. The development can now proceed further by -a metaphorical transference of the expression to similar situations -(‘There is another man of the same tribe: let us kill him as we -did the first!’) or by a blending of two or more of these proper-name -melodies. How this kind of blending may lead to the development -of something like derivative affixes may be gathered -from our chapter on Secretion; it may also result in parts of -the whole melodic utterance being disengaged as something more -like our ‘words.’ From the nature of the subject it is impossible -to give more than hints, but I seem to see ways by which primitive -‘<span lang="de" xml:lang="de">lieder ohne worte</span>’ may have become, first, indissoluble rigmaroles, -with something like a dim meaning attached to them, and then -gradually combinations of word-like smaller units, more and more -capable of being analyzed and combined with others of the same -kind. Anyhow, this theory seems to explain better than any<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_441" id="Page_441">[441]</a></span> -other the great part which fortuitous coincidence and irregularity -always play in that part of any language which is not immediately -intelligible, thus both in lexical and grammatical elements.</p> - -<p>Primitive man came to attach meaning to what were originally -rambling sequences of syllables in pretty much the same way -as the child comes to attach a meaning to many of the words he -hears from his elders, the whole situation in which they are heard -giving a clue to their interpretation. The difference is that in -the latter case the speaker has already associated a meaning with -the sound; but from the point of view of the hearer this is comparatively -immaterial: the savage of a far-distant age hearing -some syllables for the first time and the child hearing them nowadays -are in essentially the same position as to their interpretation. -Parallels are also found in the words of the <i>mamma</i> class -(Ch. VIII § <a href="#VIII_8">8</a>), in which hearers give a signification to something -pronounced unintentionally, the same syllables being then capable -of serving afterwards as real words. If one of our forebears on -some occasion accidentally produced a sequence of sounds, and -if the people around him were seen (or heard) to respond appreciatively, -he would tend to settle on the same string of sounds and -repeat it on similar occasions, and in this way it would gradually -become ‘conventionalized’ as a symbol of what was then foremost -in his and in their minds. As in agriculture primitive man -reaped before he sowed, so also in his vocal outbursts he first -reaped understanding, and then discovered that by intentionally -sowing the same seed he was able to call forth the same result. -And as with corn, he would slowly and gradually, by weeding -out (i.e. by not using) what was less useful to him, improve the -quality, till finally he had come into possession of the marvellous, -though far from perfect, instrument which we now call our -language. The development of our ordinary speech has been -largely an intellectualization, and the emotional quality which -played the largest part in primitive utterances has to some -extent been repressed; but it is not extinct, and still gives a -definite colouring to all passionate and eloquent speaking and to -poetic diction. Language, after all, is an art—one of the finest -of arts.</p> - - -<h4>XXI.—§ 16. Conclusion.</h4> - -<p>Language, then, began with half-musical unanalyzed expressions -for individual beings and solitary events. Languages composed -of, and evolved from, such words and quasi-sentences are clumsy -and insufficient instruments of thought, being intricate, capricious -and difficult. But from the beginning the tendency has been<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_442" id="Page_442">[442]</a></span> -one of progress, slow and fitful progress, but still progress towards -greater and greater clearness, regularity, ease and pliancy. No -one language has arrived at perfection; an ideal language would -always express the same thing by the same, and similar things -by similar means; any irregularity or ambiguity would be banished; -sound and sense would be in perfect harmony; any number of -delicate shades of meaning could be expressed with equal ease; -poetry and prose, beauty and truth, thinking and feeling would -be equally provided for: the human spirit would have found a -garment combining freedom and gracefulness, fitting it closely -and yet allowing full play to any movement.</p> - -<p>But, however far our present languages are from that ideal, -we must be thankful for what has been achieved, seeing <span class="lock">that—</span></p> - -<div class="poetry-container"><div class="poetry"><div class="stanza"> - <div class="verse indent4">Language is a perpetual orphic song,</div> - <div class="verse indent4">Which rules with Dædal harmony a throng</div> - <div class="verse">Of thoughts and forms, which else senseless and shapeless were.</div> -</div></div></div> - - -<div class="chapter"> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_443" id="Page_443">[443]</a></span></p> - - - -<h2 class="nobreak"><a name="INDEX" id="INDEX">INDEX</a></h2> - -</div> - -<ul class="index"><li class="ifrst"><i>a</i> Sanskrit, <a href="#Page_52">52</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>-a</i> in fem., <a href="#Page_392">392</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">in pl., <a href="#Page_394">394</a></li> - -<li class="indx"><i>abbot</i>, <a href="#Page_156">156</a></li> - -<li class="indx">ablaut, <i>see</i> <a href="#apophony">apophony</a></li> - -<li class="indx">abstract terms, <a href="#Page_429">429</a></li> - -<li class="indx">accent, <i>see</i> <a href="#stress">stress</a> <i>and</i> <a href="#tone">tone</a></li> - -<li class="indx">accusative, name, <a href="#Page_20">20</a></li> - -<li class="indx">actors, <a href="#Page_276">276</a></li> - -<li class="indx">adaptation of suffixes, <a href="#Page_386">386</a> f.</li> - -<li class="indx">adjective flexion, <a href="#Page_129">129</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">concord, <a href="#Page_348">348</a> f.</li> - -<li class="indx">African languages, <i>see</i> <a href="#Bantu">Bantu</a></li> - -<li class="indx">agglutination, <a href="#Page_54">54</a>, <a href="#Page_58">58</a>, <a href="#Page_76">76</a>, <a href="#Page_376">376</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">agglutination theory, <a href="#Page_367">367</a> ff., <a href="#Page_375">375</a> ff.</li> - -<li class="indx">agreement, <i>see</i> <a href="#concord">concord</a></li> - -<li class="indx">ambiguities, <a href="#Page_319">319</a>, <a href="#Page_341">341</a> ff.</li> - -<li class="indx">America, race mixtures, <a href="#Page_203">203</a> ff.</li> - -<li class="indx">American English, <a href="#Page_260">260</a></li> - -<li class="indx"><a id="American_Indian"></a>American Indian languages, <a href="#Page_57">57</a>, <a href="#Page_181">181</a>, <a href="#Page_187">187</a>, <a href="#Page_229">229</a>, <a href="#Page_233">233</a>, <a href="#Page_256">256</a>, <a href="#Page_334">334</a>, <a href="#Page_425">425</a>, <a href="#Page_427">427</a>, <a href="#Page_430">430</a></li> - -<li class="indx">analogy, <a href="#Page_70">70</a>, <a href="#Page_93">93</a> f., <a href="#Page_129">129</a> f., <a href="#Page_162">162</a> f., <a href="#Page_289">289</a></li> - -<li class="indx">analytic languages, <a href="#Page_36">36</a>, <a href="#Page_334">334</a> ff., <a href="#Page_422">422</a> ff.</li> - -<li class="indx">anatomical causes of change, <a href="#Page_255">255</a></li> - -<li class="indx">aphesis, <a href="#Page_273">273</a></li> - -<li class="indx"><a id="apophony"></a>apophony, <a href="#Page_46">46</a>, <a href="#Page_53">53</a>, <a href="#Page_91">91</a> ff., <a href="#Page_311">311</a></li> - -<li class="indx">aposiopesis, <a href="#Page_273">273</a></li> - -<li class="indx"><a id="appreciation"></a>appreciation of languages, <a href="#Page_29">29</a> ff., <a href="#Page_57">57</a> f., <a href="#Page_60">60</a>, <a href="#Page_62">62</a>, <a href="#Page_319">319</a> ff.;</li> -<li class="isub1">formula, <a href="#Page_324">324</a></li> - -<li class="indx">archaic forms, <a href="#Page_294">294</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Armenian, <a href="#Page_195">195</a> f.</li> - -<li class="indx">article, <a href="#Page_378">378</a></li> - -<li class="indx"><a id="Aryan"></a>Aryan, name, <a href="#Page_63">63</a> f.;</li> -<li class="isub1">languages, <i>passim</i></li> - -<li class="indx"><i>as</i>, root, <a href="#Page_49">49</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Ascoli, <a href="#Page_192">192</a> ff.</li> - -<li class="indx">assimilation, <a href="#Page_109">109</a>, <a href="#Page_168">168</a> f., <a href="#Page_264">264</a> f., <a href="#Page_280">280</a></li> - -<li class="indx">auxiliary words, <a href="#Page_358">358</a></li> - - -<li class="ifrst"><i>babe</i>, <a href="#Page_157">157</a></li> - -<li class="indx"><i>bacco</i>, <a href="#Page_171">171</a></li> - -<li class="indx">back-formations, <a href="#Page_173">173</a>, <a href="#Page_178">178</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Balkan tongues, agreements, <a href="#Page_215">215</a></li> - -<li class="indx"><a id="Bantu"></a>Bantu, <a href="#Page_239">239</a>, <a href="#Page_352">352</a> ff., <a href="#Page_365">365</a></li> - -<li class="indx"><i>-bar</i>, suffix, <a href="#Page_377">377</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Basque, <a href="#Page_210">210</a>, <a href="#Page_427">427</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Baudouin de Courtenay, <a href="#Page_327">327</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Bavarian <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">wo-st bist</i>, <a href="#Page_281">281</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Beach-la-Mar, <a href="#Page_216">216</a> ff.</li> - -<li class="indx"><i>bead</i>, <a href="#Page_175">175</a></li> - -<li class="indx"><i>bhu</i>, root, <a href="#Page_49">49</a></li> - -<li class="indx">bilinguism, <a href="#Page_147">147</a> ff.</li> - -<li class="indx">biographical or biological science of language, <a href="#Page_8">8</a></li> - -<li class="indx"><a id="blending"></a>blending, <a href="#Page_132">132</a>, <a href="#Page_281">281</a> f., <a href="#Page_311">311</a>, <a href="#Page_312">312</a> f., <a href="#Page_390">390</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Bloomfield, <a href="#Page_390">390</a></li> - -<li class="indx"><i>boon</i>, <a href="#Page_175">175</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Bopp, <a href="#Page_47">47</a> ff., <a href="#Page_56">56</a> n.</li> - -<li class="indx">borrowing of words, <a href="#Page_208">208</a></li> - -<li class="indx"><i>bound</i>, <a href="#Page_176">176</a></li> - -<li class="indx">bow-wow theory, <a href="#Page_413">413</a></li> - -<li class="indx">boys, <a href="#Page_146">146</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Bredsdorff, <a href="#Page_43">43</a> n., <a href="#Page_70">70</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Bridges, <a href="#Page_286">286</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Bröndal, <a href="#Page_200">200</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Brugmann, <a href="#Page_92">92</a> f.;</li> -<li class="isub1">on gender, <a href="#Page_391">391</a></li> - -<li class="indx"><i>bube</i>, <a href="#Page_157">157</a></li> - -<li class="indx"><i>buncombe</i>, <a href="#Page_409">409</a></li> - - -<li class="ifrst">cacuminals, <a href="#Page_196">196</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Caribbean, <a href="#Page_237">237</a> ff.</li> - -<li class="indx">Carlyle, <a href="#Page_145">145</a></li> - -<li class="indx"><a id="case-system"></a>case-system, English, <a href="#Page_268">268</a> ff.;</li> -<li class="isub1">in old languages, <a href="#Page_337">337</a> ff.;</li> -<li class="isub1">importance, <a href="#Page_341">341</a></li> - -<li class="indx"><i>catch</i>, <a href="#Page_400">400</a></li> - -<li class="indx"><i>ch</i> becomes <i>f</i>, <a href="#Page_168">168</a></li> - -<li class="indx">changes, causes of, <a href="#Page_255">255</a> ff.</li> - -<li class="indx">child, <a href="#Page_103">103</a> ff.;</li> -<li class="isub1">sounds, <a href="#Page_105">105</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">understanding, <a href="#Page_113">113</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">classification of things, <a href="#Page_114">114</a> f.;</li> -<li class="isub1">vocabulary, <a href="#Page_124">124</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">grammar, <a href="#Page_128">128</a> ff.;</li> -<li class="isub1">sentences, <a href="#Page_133">133</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">echoism, <a href="#Page_135">135</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">why learns so well, <a href="#Page_140">140</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">influence of other children, <a href="#Page_147">147</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">word-invention, <a href="#Page_151">151</a> ff.;</li> -<li class="isub1">influence of, <a href="#Page_161">161</a> ff.;</li> -<li class="isub1">indirect influence, <a href="#Page_178">178</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">new languages, <a href="#Page_180">180</a> ff.</li> - -<li class="indx">Chinese, <a href="#Page_36">36</a>, <a href="#Page_54">54</a>, <a href="#Page_57">57</a>, <a href="#Page_286">286</a>, <a href="#Page_369">369</a> ff.</li> - -<li class="indx">Chinook, <a href="#Page_228">228</a> ff.</li> - -<li class="indx">classification of languages, <a href="#Page_35">35</a> f., <a href="#Page_54">54</a>, <a href="#Page_76">76</a> ff.</li> - -<li class="indx">classifying instinct, <a href="#Page_388">388</a></li> - -<li class="indx">clicks, <a href="#Page_415">415</a>, <a href="#Page_419">419</a></li> - -<li class="indx">climate, <a href="#Page_256">256</a></li> - -<li class="indx">clippings, <i>see</i> <a href="#stump-words">stump-words</a></li> - -<li class="indx">coalescence of words, <a href="#Page_174">174</a>, <a href="#Page_376">376</a> ff.</li> - -<li class="indx">Cœurdoux, <a href="#Page_33">33</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Collitz, <a href="#Page_45">45</a> n., <a href="#Page_257">257</a>, <a href="#Page_381">381</a></li> - -<li class="indx"><a id="concord"></a>concord, verbal, <a href="#Page_335">335</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">nominal, <a href="#Page_348">348</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">in Bantu, <a href="#Page_352">352</a> ff.</li> - -<li class="indx"><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_444" id="Page_444">[444]</a></span>concrete words, <a href="#Page_429">429</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Condillac, <a href="#Page_27">27</a></li> - -<li class="indx">confusion of words, <a href="#Page_122">122</a>, <a href="#Page_172">172</a></li> - -<li class="indx">congeneric groups, <a href="#Page_389">389</a> f.</li> - -<li class="indx">conjugation, <i>see</i> <a href="#verb">verb</a></li> - -<li class="indx">consciousness, <a href="#Page_130">130</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">threshold of, <a href="#Page_138">138</a></li> - -<li class="indx"><a id="consonant-shift"></a>consonant-shift, <a href="#Page_43">43</a> ff., <a href="#Page_195">195</a>, <a href="#Page_197">197</a>, <a href="#Page_204">204</a>, <a href="#Page_256">256</a>, <a href="#Page_258">258</a> f.</li> - -<li class="indx">contamination, <i>see</i> <a href="#blending">blending</a></li> - -<li class="indx">convergent changes, <a href="#Page_284">284</a> f.</li> - -<li class="indx">copula, <a href="#Page_48">48</a> f.</li> - -<li class="indx">correctness, latitude of, <a href="#Page_282">282</a> ff.</li> - -<li class="indx">creation of new words, <a href="#Page_151">151</a> ff.</li> - -<li class="indx">Creole, <a href="#Page_226">226</a> ff.</li> - -<li class="indx"><i>cuckoo</i>, <a href="#Page_406">406</a></li> - -<li class="indx">cultural loan-words, <a href="#Page_209">209</a></li> - -<li class="indx"><i>curry favour</i>, <a href="#Page_173">173</a></li> - -<li class="indx">curtailing of words, <a href="#Page_108">108</a>, <a href="#Page_169">169</a> f., <a href="#Page_328">328</a> f.</li> - -<li class="indx">Curtius, <a href="#Page_83">83</a>, <a href="#Page_94">94</a></li> - - -<li class="ifrst"><i>-d</i> in <i>loved</i>, <a href="#Page_51">51</a>, <a href="#Page_381">381</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Darwin, <a href="#Page_414">414</a></li> - -<li class="indx">dead languages, <a href="#Page_67">67</a></li> - -<li class="indx">decay, <a href="#Page_55">55</a>, <a href="#Page_59">59</a>, <a href="#Page_62">62</a>, <a href="#Page_77">77</a>, <a href="#Page_319">319</a> ff.</li> - -<li class="indx">declension, <i>see</i> <a href="#case-system">case-system</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Delbrück, <a href="#Page_93">93</a>, <a href="#Page_96">96</a></li> - -<li class="indx">dialect, study of, <a href="#Page_68">68</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">spoken by children, <a href="#Page_147">147</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Diez, <a href="#Page_85">85</a></li> - -<li class="indx"><a id="differentiations"></a>differentiations, <a href="#Page_176">176</a>, <a href="#Page_272">272</a></li> - -<li class="indx">diminutives, <a href="#Page_180">180</a>, <a href="#Page_402">402</a></li> - -<li class="indx">ding-dong theory, <a href="#Page_415">415</a></li> - -<li class="indx">divergent changes, <a href="#Page_288">288</a></li> - -<li class="indx">doublets, <a href="#Page_272">272</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Dravidian influence on Indian, <a href="#Page_196">196</a></li> - -<li class="indx">drunken speech, <a href="#Page_279">279</a></li> - -<li class="indx"><i>dump</i>, <a href="#Page_313">313</a></li> - - -<li class="ifrst"><i>e</i> original in Aryan, <a href="#Page_52">52</a>, <a href="#Page_91">91</a></li> - -<li class="indx"><a id="ease_theory"></a>ease theory, <a href="#Page_261">261</a> ff.</li> - -<li class="indx">echoism, <a href="#Page_135">135</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">cf. <a href="#echo-words">echo-words</a></li> - -<li class="indx"><a id="echo-words"></a>echo-words, <a href="#Page_313">313</a>, <a href="#Page_398">398</a> ff.</li> - -<li class="indx">economizing of effort, <i>see</i> <a href="#ease_theory">ease-theory</a></li> - -<li class="indx">effort in speaking, <a href="#Page_261">261</a> ff., <a href="#Page_324">324</a> ff.</li> - -<li class="indx"><i>eglino</i>, <a href="#Page_281">281</a></li> - -<li class="indx">emotion, influence on sound, <a href="#Page_276">276</a></li> - -<li class="indx"><i>-en</i> in plural, <a href="#Page_385">385</a></li> - -<li class="indx">ending, <i>see</i> <a href="#flexion">flexion</a>, <a href="#suffixes">suffix</a></li> - -<li class="indx">English, Grimm’s appreciation, <a href="#Page_62">62</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">foreign influence, <a href="#Page_202">202</a>, <a href="#Page_210">210</a>, <a href="#Page_212">212</a> ff.;</li> -<li class="isub1">rapid change, <a href="#Page_261">261</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">case-system, <a href="#Page_268">268</a> ff.;</li> -<li class="isub1">future tense, <a href="#Page_274">274</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">vowel-shift, <a href="#Page_243">243</a>, <a href="#Page_284">284</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">word-order, <a href="#Page_344">344</a> f.;</li> -<li class="isub1">genitive, <a href="#Page_350">350</a></li> - -<li class="indx">entangling, <a href="#Page_422">422</a></li> - -<li class="indx">equidistant changes, <a href="#Page_284">284</a></li> - -<li class="indx"><i>-er</i> in plural, <a href="#Page_386">386</a></li> - -<li class="indx">estimation of languages, <i>see</i> <a href="#appreciation">appreciation</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Etruscan, <a href="#Page_195">195</a></li> - -<li class="indx">etymology, sound laws, <a href="#Page_295">295</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">principles, <a href="#Page_305">305</a> ff.;</li> -<li class="isub1">object of, <a href="#Page_316">316</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">etymology of <i>rag</i>, <a href="#Page_300">300</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">of <i>sun</i>, <i>say</i>, <i>see</i>, <a href="#Page_306">306</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">of <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">krieg</i>, <a href="#Page_307">307</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">of <i>grog</i>, <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">ganz</i>, <a href="#Page_308">308</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">of <i>hope</i>, <a href="#Page_309">309</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">of <i>nut</i>, <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">stumm</i>, <a href="#Page_311">311</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">of <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">mais</i>, <i>maar</i>, <i>men</i>, <a href="#Page_315">315</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">of <i>moon</i>, <i>daughter</i>, <i>mother</i>, <a href="#Page_318">318</a></li> - -<li class="indx">euphemism, <a href="#Page_245">245</a> ff.</li> - -<li class="indx">euphony, <a href="#Page_278">278</a></li> - -<li class="indx">exceptions to sound-laws, <a href="#Page_296">296</a> ff.</li> - -<li class="indx">exertion in speaking, <a href="#Page_261">261</a> ff., <a href="#Page_324">324</a> ff.</li> - -<li class="indx">expressive sounds preserved, <a href="#Page_288">288</a></li> - -<li class="indx">extension of sound laws, <a href="#Page_290">290</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">of suffixes, <a href="#Page_386">386</a> ff.</li> - -<li class="indx">extra-lingual influences, <a href="#Page_278">278</a></li> - - -<li class="ifrst"><i>f</i> for <i>th</i>, <a href="#Page_167">167</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">in <i>enough</i>, etc., <a href="#Page_168">168</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">in Spanish, <a href="#Page_193">193</a></li> - -<li class="indx">fable in Proto-Aryan, <a href="#Page_81">81</a></li> - -<li class="indx"><i>fain</i>, <a href="#Page_176">176</a></li> - -<li class="indx">fashion in language, <a href="#Page_291">291</a></li> - -<li class="indx"><i>father</i>, <a href="#Page_117">117</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Feist, <a href="#Page_194">194</a> ff.</li> - -<li class="indx">feminine, <a href="#Page_391">391</a> ff.;</li> -<li class="isub1">in <i>-i</i>, <a href="#Page_394">394</a>, <a href="#Page_402">402</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">cf. <a href="#women">woman</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Finnic, <a href="#Page_197">197</a> f., <a href="#Page_207">207</a></li> - -<li class="indx"><a id="flexion"></a>flexion, <a href="#Page_35">35</a>, <a href="#Page_54">54</a> f., <a href="#Page_58">58</a> f., <a href="#Page_76">76</a> ff., <a href="#Page_79">79</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">origin of, <a href="#Page_377">377</a> ff.</li> - -<li class="indx">foreign languages, mistakes in noting down, <a href="#Page_116">116</a> f.;</li> -<li class="isub1">influence of, <a href="#Page_191">191</a> ff.</li> - -<li class="indx">forgetfulness, <a href="#Page_176">176</a></li> - -<li class="indx">forms, number of, <a href="#Page_332">332</a>, <a href="#Page_337">337</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">origin of, <a href="#Page_49">49</a>, <a href="#Page_58">58</a>, <a href="#Page_377">377</a> ff.</li> - -<li class="indx">French influence on English, <a href="#Page_202">202</a>, <a href="#Page_209">209</a>, <a href="#Page_214">214</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">pronouns and verbs, <a href="#Page_422">422</a> f.</li> - -<li class="indx">frequency, influence on phonetic development, <a href="#Page_267">267</a></li> - -<li class="indx"><i>-ful</i>, suffix, <a href="#Page_376">376</a></li> - - -<li class="ifrst">Gabelentz, <a href="#Page_98">98</a>, <a href="#Page_369">369</a></li> - -<li class="indx"><i>ganz</i>, <a href="#Page_308">308</a></li> - -<li class="indx"><i>gape</i>, <a href="#Page_288">288</a></li> - -<li class="indx">gender, <a href="#Page_346">346</a> f., <a href="#Page_391">391</a> ff.</li> - -<li class="indx">general and specific terms, <a href="#Page_274">274</a>, <a href="#Page_429">429</a> f.</li> - -<li class="indx">genitive, name, <a href="#Page_20">20</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">group, <a href="#Page_351">351</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>s</i> in, <a href="#Page_382">382</a>, <a href="#Page_383">383</a> n.</li> - -<li class="indx">geographical distribution of languages, <a href="#Page_187">187</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">influence on change, <a href="#Page_256">256</a></li> - -<li class="indx">German language, appreciation of, <a href="#Page_29">29</a>, <a href="#Page_31">31</a>, <a href="#Page_60">60</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">sound-shift, <a href="#Page_43">43</a> ff., <a href="#Page_195">195</a> f., <a href="#Page_283">283</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">forms, <a href="#Page_341">341</a> ff.;</li> -<li class="isub1">word-order, <a href="#Page_344">344</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Germanic, <i>see</i> <a href="#Gothonic">Gothonic</a></li> - -<li class="indx">gibberish, <a href="#Page_149">149</a> f.</li> - -<li class="indx">girls, <a href="#Page_146">146</a></li> - -<li class="indx"><i>gleam</i>, <i>gloom</i>, <a href="#Page_401">401</a></li> - -<li class="indx">glottogonic theories abandoned, <a href="#Page_96">96</a></li> - -<li class="indx"><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_445" id="Page_445">[445]</a></span><a id="Gothonic"></a>Gothonic (Germanic, Teutonic), <a href="#Page_42">42</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">sound-shift, <i>see</i> <a href="#consonant-shift">consonant-shift</a></li> - -<li class="indx">gradation, <i>see</i> <a href="#apophony">apophony</a></li> - -<li class="indx">grammar, children’s, <a href="#Page_128">128</a> ff.;</li> -<li class="isub1">foreign influence, <a href="#Page_213">213</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">of primitive languages, <a href="#Page_421">421</a></li> - -<li class="indx">grammatical elements, origin, <a href="#Page_48">48</a>, <a href="#Page_58">58</a>, <a href="#Page_61">61</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Greek linguistic speculation, <a href="#Page_19">19</a> f.;</li> -<li class="isub1">vowels, <a href="#Page_91">91</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">personal pronouns, <a href="#Page_286">286</a> n.;</li> -<li class="isub1">Modern Greek, <a href="#Page_301">301</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Grimm, <a href="#Page_37">37</a>, <a href="#Page_40">40</a> ff., <a href="#Page_60">60</a> ff.</li> - -<li class="indx">Grimm’s Law, <a href="#Page_43">43</a> f.;</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>see</i> <a href="#consonant-shift">consonant-shift</a></li> - -<li class="indx"><i>grog</i>, <a href="#Page_308">308</a></li> - -<li class="indx">group genitive, <a href="#Page_129">129</a>, <a href="#Page_351">351</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">groups of words with similar meaning, <a href="#Page_389">389</a></li> - - -<li class="ifrst"><i>h</i> for <i>f</i> in Spanish, <a href="#Page_193">193</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">for <i>s</i>, etc., <a href="#Page_263">263</a></li> - -<li class="indx"><i>habaidedeima</i>, <a href="#Page_322">322</a>, <a href="#Page_329">329</a>, <a href="#Page_331">331</a> f.</li> - -<li class="indx">Hale, <a href="#Page_181">181</a> ff.</li> - -<li class="indx">haplology, <a href="#Page_281">281</a>, <a href="#Page_329">329</a></li> - -<li class="indx">harmony of vowels, <a href="#Page_280">280</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Hebrew, <a href="#Page_21">21</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Hegel, <a href="#Page_72">72</a> f.</li> - -<li class="indx">Hempl, <a href="#Page_201">201</a> ff.</li> - -<li class="indx">Herder, <a href="#Page_27">27</a> f.</li> - -<li class="indx">hereditary aptness for a language, <a href="#Page_75">75</a>, <a href="#Page_141">141</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Hermann, <a href="#Page_48">48</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Hervas, <a href="#Page_22">22</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Herzog, <a href="#Page_164">164</a> f.</li> - -<li class="indx"><i>hide</i>, <a href="#Page_121">121</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Hirt, <a href="#Page_192">192</a>, <a href="#Page_203">203</a> f., <a href="#Page_382">382</a> f.</li> - -<li class="indx">historical point of view, <a href="#Page_32">32</a>, <a href="#Page_42">42</a></li> - -<li class="indx">homophones, <a href="#Page_285">285</a> f.</li> - -<li class="indx"><i>-hood</i>, suffix, <a href="#Page_376">376</a></li> - -<li class="indx"><i>hope</i>, <a href="#Page_309">309</a></li> - -<li class="indx">humanization of language, <a href="#Page_327">327</a> f.</li> - -<li class="indx">Humboldt, <a href="#Page_55">55</a> ff.</li> - -<li class="indx">hypercorrect forms, <a href="#Page_294">294</a></li> - - -<li class="ifrst">I, the pronoun, <a href="#Page_123">123</a> f.</li> - -<li class="indx"><i>i</i> denoting small, feminine, near, <a href="#Page_402">402</a></li> - -<li class="indx">idioms, <a href="#Page_139">139</a></li> - -<li class="indx">imitation, <a href="#Page_291">291</a> ff.;</li> -<li class="isub1">of sounds, <a href="#Page_398">398</a>, <a href="#Page_413">413</a> f.</li> - -<li class="indx">imperative, <a href="#Page_403">403</a></li> - -<li class="indx">incorporation, <a href="#Page_58">58</a>, <a href="#Page_79">79</a>, <a href="#Page_425">425</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Indian grammarians, <a href="#Page_20">20</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">cacuminals, <a href="#Page_196">196</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">cf. <a href="#American_Indian">American Indian</a>, <a href="#Sanskrit">Sanskrit</a></li> - -<li class="indx">indirect ways of obtaining expressions, <a href="#Page_438">438</a></li> - -<li class="indx">indissoluble expressions of several ideas, <a href="#Page_334">334</a>, <a href="#Page_422">422</a> ff., <a href="#Page_428">428</a> ff.</li> - -<li class="indx">Indo-European (Indo-Germanic), <i>see</i> <a href="#Aryan">Aryan</a></li> - -<li class="indx">indolence, <i>see</i> <a href="#ease_theory">ease-theory</a></li> - -<li class="indx">inflexion, <i>see</i> <a href="#flexion">flexion</a></li> - -<li class="indx">interjections, <a href="#Page_414">414</a></li> - -<li class="indx">interrogative sentences, <a href="#Page_137">137</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">particles, <a href="#Page_358">358</a></li> - -<li class="indx"><a id="invention"></a>invention of words, <a href="#Page_151">151</a> ff.</li> - -<li class="indx">irregularities in old languages, <a href="#Page_338">338</a> f., <a href="#Page_379">379</a>, <a href="#Page_425">425</a></li> - -<li class="indx">isolating languages, <a href="#Page_36">36</a>, <a href="#Page_76">76</a>, <a href="#Page_366">366</a> ff.</li> - - -<li class="ifrst">Japanese, <a href="#Page_243">243</a></li> - -<li class="indx">jaw-breakers, <a href="#Page_280">280</a></li> - -<li class="indx">jaw-measurements, <a href="#Page_104">104</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Jenisch, <a href="#Page_29">29</a> ff.</li> - -<li class="indx">Johannson, <a href="#Page_341">341</a> ff.</li> - -<li class="indx">Jones, William, <a href="#Page_33">33</a></li> - -<li class="indx">[ju·], <a href="#Page_290">290</a> f.</li> - - -<li class="ifrst">Karlgren, <a href="#Page_372">372</a> f.</li> - -<li class="indx">Keltic languages, <a href="#Page_38">38</a>, <a href="#Page_39">39</a>, <a href="#Page_53">53</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">substratum, <a href="#Page_192">192</a> ff.</li> - -<li class="indx">Kuhn, <a href="#Page_371">371</a></li> - -<li class="indx"><i>kw</i> becomes <i>p</i>, <a href="#Page_168">168</a></li> - - -<li class="ifrst">languages, rise of new, <a href="#Page_180">180</a> ff.</li> - -<li class="indx">language-teaching, <a href="#Page_145">145</a></li> - -<li class="indx">lapses, <a href="#Page_279">279</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Latin, study of, <a href="#Page_22">22</a> f.;</li> -<li class="isub1">influence, <a href="#Page_209">209</a>, <a href="#Page_215">215</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">forms, <a href="#Page_334">334</a>, <a href="#Page_338">338</a> f., <a href="#Page_343">343</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">word-order, <a href="#Page_350">350</a></li> - -<li class="indx">latitude of correctness, <a href="#Page_282">282</a></li> - -<li class="indx">law as applied to sound-changes, <a href="#Page_297">297</a></li> - -<li class="indx">leaps in phonetic development, <a href="#Page_167">167</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">in meanings, <a href="#Page_175">175</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Leibniz, <a href="#Page_22">22</a></li> - -<li class="indx">lengthening, emotional, <a href="#Page_277">277</a>, <a href="#Page_403">403</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">of words, <a href="#Page_330">330</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Lenz, <a href="#Page_204">204</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Lepsius, <a href="#Page_370">370</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Leskien, <a href="#Page_93">93</a></li> - -<li class="indx">life as applied to language, <a href="#Page_7">7</a></li> - -<li class="indx">lingua geral, <a href="#Page_234">234</a></li> - -<li class="indx">linguistics, position of, <a href="#Page_64">64</a> f., <a href="#Page_73">73</a>, <a href="#Page_86">86</a>, <a href="#Page_97">97</a></li> - -<li class="indx"><i>little</i>, <a href="#Page_407">407</a></li> - -<li class="indx">little language, <a href="#Page_103">103</a>, <a href="#Page_106">106</a>, <a href="#Page_144">144</a>, <a href="#Page_147">147</a></li> - -<li class="indx">living languages, study of, <a href="#Page_97">97</a></li> - -<li class="indx">loan-words, sound-substitution, <a href="#Page_207">207</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">general theory, <a href="#Page_208">208</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">culture, <a href="#Page_209">209</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">classes, <a href="#Page_211">211</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">with symbolic sounds, <a href="#Page_409">409</a></li> - -<li class="indx">loss of sounds, <a href="#Page_108">108</a>, <a href="#Page_168">168</a>, <a href="#Page_328">328</a> f.</li> - -<li class="indx">love-songs, <a href="#Page_433">433</a> f.</li> - -<li class="indx">Luxemburg, bilinguism in, <a href="#Page_148">148</a></li> - -<li class="indx"><i>-ly</i>, suffix, <a href="#Page_377">377</a></li> - - -<li class="ifrst"><i>m</i> in adversative conjunctions, <a href="#Page_314">314</a> ff.;</li> -<li class="isub1">case-ending, <a href="#Page_382">382</a></li> - -<li class="indx"><i>ma</i>, <i>maar</i>, <a href="#Page_314">314</a> f.</li> - -<li class="indx">Madvig, <a href="#Page_84">84</a>, <a href="#Page_433">433</a></li> - -<li class="indx"><i>magis</i>, <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">mais</i>, <a href="#Page_314">314</a> f.</li> - -<li class="indx">makeshift languages, <a href="#Page_232">232</a> ff.</li> - -<li class="indx"><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_446" id="Page_446">[446]</a></span><i>mamma</i>, <a href="#Page_154">154</a> ff.</li> - -<li class="indx">man and woman, <a href="#Page_142">142</a>, <a href="#Page_237">237</a> ff.</li> - -<li class="indx">Mauritius Creole, <a href="#Page_226">226</a> ff.</li> - -<li class="indx">meaning, delimitation of, <a href="#Page_118">118</a> f.;</li> -<li class="isub1">words of opposite meaning, <a href="#Page_120">120</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">words with several meanings, <a href="#Page_121">121</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">shifting of meaning, <a href="#Page_174">174</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">cf. <a href="#semantic_changes">semantic changes</a></li> - -<li class="indx">meaningless gibberish, <a href="#Page_149">149</a> f.;</li> -<li class="isub1">singing, <a href="#Page_436">436</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Meillet, <a href="#Page_55">55</a>, <a href="#Page_198">198</a> f.</li> - -<li class="indx">memory, children’s, <a href="#Page_143">143</a></li> - -<li class="indx"><i>men</i>, <a href="#Page_315">315</a></li> - -<li class="indx">mental states, words for, <a href="#Page_401">401</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Meringer, <a href="#Page_162">162</a> f., <a href="#Page_280">280</a>, <a href="#Page_291">291</a></li> - -<li class="indx">metanalysis, <a href="#Page_173">173</a></li> - -<li class="indx">metaphors, <a href="#Page_431">431</a></li> - -<li class="indx">metathesis, <a href="#Page_108">108</a>, <a href="#Page_281">281</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Meyer-Benfey, <a href="#Page_256">256</a></li> - -<li class="indx"><i>milk</i>, <a href="#Page_158">158</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Misteli, <a href="#Page_79">79</a></li> - -<li class="indx">misunderstandings, <a href="#Page_282">282</a>, <a href="#Page_286">286</a> f., <a href="#Page_319">319</a></li> - -<li class="indx">mixed languages, <a href="#Page_191">191</a> ff.</li> - -<li class="indx">modern languages, study of, <a href="#Page_68">68</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">compared with ancient, <a href="#Page_322">322</a> ff.</li> - -<li class="indx">Möller, H., <a href="#Page_139">139</a>, <a href="#Page_308">308</a>, <a href="#Page_382">382</a></li> - -<li class="indx"><i>mon</i>, <a href="#Page_358">358</a></li> - -<li class="indx">monosyllabic languages, <a href="#Page_36">36</a>, <a href="#Page_367">367</a> ff.</li> - -<li class="indx"><i>month</i>, <a href="#Page_318">318</a></li> - -<li class="indx">moods, <a href="#Page_380">380</a></li> - -<li class="indx"><i>moon</i>, <a href="#Page_318">318</a></li> - -<li class="indx"><i>mother</i>, <a href="#Page_155">155</a>, <a href="#Page_318">318</a></li> - -<li class="indx">mother-tongue, <a href="#Page_146">146</a></li> - -<li class="indx">movement, words denoting, <a href="#Page_399">399</a></li> - -<li class="indx">mountains, linguistic changes in, <a href="#Page_256">256</a> f.</li> - -<li class="indx">mouth-filling words, <a href="#Page_403">403</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Müller, Friedrich, <a href="#Page_79">79</a>, <a href="#Page_338">338</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Müller, Max, <a href="#Page_88">88</a> ff., <a href="#Page_414">414</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Murray, <a href="#Page_269">269</a></li> - -<li class="indx">mutation, <a href="#Page_37">37</a>, <a href="#Page_46">46</a></li> - -<li class="indx">mutilation of lips, <a href="#Page_256">256</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">of words, <a href="#Page_266">266</a></li> - -<li class="indx"><i>my</i>, <a href="#Page_384">384</a> f.</li> - - -<li class="ifrst"><i>-n</i> in <i>mine</i>, <a href="#Page_384">384</a> f.</li> - -<li class="indx">names of relations, <a href="#Page_118">118</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">proper, <a href="#Page_439">439</a></li> - -<li class="indx">nasalis sonans, <a href="#Page_92">92</a>, <a href="#Page_317">317</a> f.</li> - -<li class="indx">national psychology, <a href="#Page_258">258</a></li> - -<li class="indx">negation, <a href="#Page_136">136</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">redundant, <a href="#Page_352">352</a></li> - -<li class="indx">neo-grammarians, <i>see</i> <a href="#young-grammarians">young-grammarians</a></li> - -<li class="indx">new languages, <a href="#Page_180">180</a> ff.</li> - -<li class="indx">Noiré, <a href="#Page_415">415</a></li> - -<li class="indx"><a id="nominal"></a>nominal forms, <a href="#Page_337">337</a> ff.;</li> -<li class="isub1">concord, <a href="#Page_348">348</a> ff.</li> - -<li class="indx"><a id="number"></a>number in verbs, <a href="#Page_335">335</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">in pronouns, <a href="#Page_347">347</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">in nouns, <a href="#Page_129">129</a>, <a href="#Page_349">349</a>, <a href="#Page_355">355</a>, <a href="#Page_385">385</a>, <a href="#Page_394">394</a> f.</li> - -<li class="indx">numerals, <a href="#Page_119">119</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">borrowed, <a href="#Page_211">211</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">in succession, <a href="#Page_281">281</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">distinct for various classes, <a href="#Page_430">430</a></li> - -<li class="indx">nursery language, <a href="#Page_179">179</a></li> - -<li class="indx"><i>nut</i>, <a href="#Page_311">311</a></li> - - -<li class="ifrst"><i>o</i> original in Aryan, <a href="#Page_52">52</a>, <a href="#Page_91">91</a></li> - -<li class="indx">old languages compared with modern, <a href="#Page_322">322</a> ff.</li> - -<li class="indx"><i>on</i>, <a href="#Page_287">287</a></li> - -<li class="indx"><i>oncle</i>, <a href="#Page_271">271</a> n.</li> - -<li class="indx">onomatopœia, <a href="#Page_150">150</a>, <a href="#Page_313">313</a>, <a href="#Page_398">398</a> ff.</li> - -<li class="indx">opposite meaning, <a href="#Page_120">120</a></li> - -<li class="indx">order of words, <i>see</i> <a href="#word-order">word-order</a></li> - -<li class="indx">organism, language as an, <a href="#Page_7">7</a>, <a href="#Page_65">65</a></li> - -<li class="indx">organs of speech, used for other purposes, <a href="#Page_278">278</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">development, <a href="#Page_416">416</a>, <a href="#Page_436">436</a></li> - -<li class="indx"><i>orient</i>, <a href="#Page_175">175</a></li> - -<li class="indx">origin of language, <a href="#Page_26">26</a> ff., <a href="#Page_61">61</a>, <a href="#Page_412">412</a> ff.;</li> -<li class="isub1">of grammatical elements, <a href="#Page_367">367</a> ff.</li> - -<li class="indx">Osthoff, <a href="#Page_93">93</a></li> - -<li class="indx"><i>ox</i>, <i>oxen</i>, <a href="#Page_385">385</a></li> - - -<li class="ifrst">palatal law, <a href="#Page_90">90</a> f.</li> - -<li class="indx">Panini, <a href="#Page_20">20</a></li> - -<li class="indx"><i>pap</i>, <a href="#Page_158">158</a></li> - -<li class="indx"><i>papa</i>, <a href="#Page_154">154</a> ff.</li> - -<li class="indx">parenthesizing, <a href="#Page_350">350</a> f.</li> - -<li class="indx">passive, Scandinavian, <a href="#Page_50">50</a>, <a href="#Page_377">377</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Latin, <a href="#Page_50">50</a>, <a href="#Page_381">381</a></li> - -<li class="indx"><i>patter</i>, <a href="#Page_407">407</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Paul, <a href="#Page_94">94</a> f., <a href="#Page_162">162</a></li> - -<li class="indx">periods of rapid change, <a href="#Page_259">259</a></li> - -<li class="indx">personal forms in verbs, <a href="#Page_53">53</a>, <a href="#Page_335">335</a>, <a href="#Page_383">383</a></li> - -<li class="indx">pet-names, <a href="#Page_108">108</a>, <a href="#Page_169">169</a></li> - -<li class="indx">philology, <a href="#Page_64">64</a> f., <a href="#Page_97">97</a></li> - -<li class="indx">phonetic laws, <i>see</i> <a href="#sound_changes">sound changes</a>, <a href="#sound_laws">sound laws</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Pidgin-English, <a href="#Page_221">221</a> ff.</li> - -<li class="indx"><i>pittance</i>, <a href="#Page_408">408</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Plato, <a href="#Page_19">19</a>, <a href="#Page_396">396</a></li> - -<li class="indx">playfulness, <a href="#Page_148">148</a>, <a href="#Page_298">298</a> f., <a href="#Page_432">432</a> ff.</li> - -<li class="indx"><i lang="la" xml:lang="la">plumbum</i>, <i>plummet</i>, <i>plunge</i>, <a href="#Page_313">313</a> f.</li> - -<li class="indx">plural, <i>see</i> <a href="#number">number</a></li> - -<li class="indx">poetry, <a href="#Page_300">300</a>, <a href="#Page_431">431</a> f.</li> - -<li class="indx">polysynthetic, <a href="#Page_423">423</a>, <a href="#Page_425">425</a></li> - -<li class="indx">pooh-pooh theory, <a href="#Page_414">414</a></li> - -<li class="indx"><i>pope</i>, <a href="#Page_156">156</a></li> - -<li class="indx">popular etymology, <a href="#Page_122">122</a></li> - -<li class="indx">portmanteau words, <a href="#Page_313">313</a></li> - -<li class="indx">possessive pronouns, <a href="#Page_384">384</a> f.</li> - -<li class="indx">prepositions, <a href="#Page_137">137</a> f.;</li> -<li class="isub1">borrowed, <a href="#Page_211">211</a></li> - -<li class="indx">prescriptive grammar, <a href="#Page_24">24</a></li> - -<li class="indx">preterit, weak, <a href="#Page_51">51</a>, <a href="#Page_381">381</a></li> - -<li class="indx">primitive languages, <a href="#Page_417">417</a> ff.</li> - -<li class="indx">progressive tendency, <a href="#Page_319">319</a> ff.</li> - -<li class="indx">pronouns, <a href="#Page_123">123</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">borrowed, <a href="#Page_212">212</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">possessive, <a href="#Page_384">384</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">French, <a href="#Page_422">422</a></li> - -<li class="indx">proper names, <a href="#Page_436">436</a></li> - -<li class="indx">prosiopesis, <a href="#Page_273">273</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Proto-Aryan, <a href="#Page_80">80</a> f., <a href="#Page_90">90</a> f.</li> - -<li class="indx">punning phrases, <a href="#Page_300">300</a></li> - -<li class="indx"><i>pupil</i>, <a href="#Page_157">157</a></li> - -<li class="indx"><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_447" id="Page_447">[447]</a></span><i>puppet</i>, <a href="#Page_157">157</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Pușcariu, <a href="#Page_205">205</a></li> - - -<li class="ifrst">question, <a href="#Page_137">137</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1"><a id="word-order"></a>word-order and auxiliaries, <a href="#Page_357">357</a> ff.</li> - -<li class="indx">quick, <a href="#Page_407">407</a></li> - - -<li class="ifrst"><i>r</i> in Latin passive, <a href="#Page_381">381</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">sound of <i>r</i> weakened, <a href="#Page_244">244</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>r-</i> and <i>n-</i> stems, <a href="#Page_339">339</a>, <a href="#Page_390">390</a></li> - -<li class="indx">race and language, <a href="#Page_75">75</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">race-mixture, <a href="#Page_201">201</a> ff.</li> - -<li class="indx">rapidity of change, <a href="#Page_259">259</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Rapp, <a href="#Page_68">68</a> ff.</li> - -<li class="indx">Rask, <a href="#Page_36">36</a> ff., <a href="#Page_43">43</a>, <a href="#Page_46">46</a></li> - -<li class="indx">rational, everything originally r., <a href="#Page_316">316</a></li> - -<li class="indx">reaction against change, <a href="#Page_293">293</a></li> - -<li class="indx">reconstruction, <a href="#Page_80">80</a> ff., <a href="#Page_317">317</a></li> - -<li class="indx">reduplication, <a href="#Page_109">109</a>, <a href="#Page_169">169</a></li> - -<li class="indx">relationship between languages, <a href="#Page_38">38</a>, <a href="#Page_53">53</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">terms of, <a href="#Page_117">117</a>, <a href="#Page_154">154</a> ff.</li> - -<li class="indx"><i>right</i>, <a href="#Page_180">180</a></li> - -<li class="indx"><i>roll</i>, <a href="#Page_374">374</a>, <a href="#Page_408">408</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Romanic languages, <a href="#Page_202">202</a>, <a href="#Page_205">205</a> f., <a href="#Page_234">234</a> ff., <a href="#Page_260">260</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">future, <a href="#Page_378">378</a></li> - -<li class="indx">root-determinatives, <a href="#Page_311">311</a></li> - -<li class="indx">roots, <a href="#Page_52">52</a>, <a href="#Page_367">367</a> ff., <a href="#Page_373">373</a> ff.</li> - -<li class="indx">Rousseau, <a href="#Page_26">26</a></li> - - -<li class="ifrst"><i>s</i> in passive, <a href="#Page_50">50</a>, <a href="#Page_377">377</a>, <a href="#Page_381">381</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">case-ending, <a href="#Page_213">213</a>, <a href="#Page_381">381</a> ff.;</li> -<li class="isub1">in English plural, <a href="#Page_214">214</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">in Russian and Spanish, <a href="#Page_266">266</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Latin disappears, <a href="#Page_362">362</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Sandfeld, <a href="#Page_215">215</a></li> - -<li class="indx"><a id="Sanskrit"></a>Sanskrit, <a href="#Page_33">33</a>, <a href="#Page_67">67</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">vowels, <a href="#Page_52">52</a>, <a href="#Page_90">90</a> f.;</li> -<li class="isub1">consonants, <a href="#Page_90">90</a> f., <a href="#Page_196">196</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">drama, <a href="#Page_241">241</a> f.</li> - -<li class="indx">savages, languages of, <a href="#Page_417">417</a>, <a href="#Page_426">426</a> ff.</li> - -<li class="indx">saving of effort, of space, of time, <a href="#Page_264">264</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Scandinavian influence on English, <a href="#Page_212">212</a>, <a href="#Page_214">214</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">passive, <a href="#Page_50">50</a>, <a href="#Page_377">377</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">article, <a href="#Page_378">378</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Scherer, <a href="#Page_96">96</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Schlegel, A. W., <a href="#Page_36">36</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Schlegel, F., <a href="#Page_34">34</a> f.</li> - -<li class="indx">Schleicher, <a href="#Page_71">71</a> ff.</li> - -<li class="indx">Schuchardt, <a href="#Page_191">191</a>, <a href="#Page_213">213</a>, <a href="#Page_219">219</a>, <a href="#Page_267">267</a></li> - -<li class="indx">scorn, words expressive of, <a href="#Page_401">401</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Scotch, <a href="#Page_193">193</a> n.</li> - -<li class="indx">screaming, <a href="#Page_103">103</a></li> - -<li class="indx">secondary echoism, <a href="#Page_406">406</a></li> - -<li class="indx">secret languages, <a href="#Page_149">149</a> f.</li> - -<li class="indx">secretion, <a href="#Page_384">384</a> ff.</li> - -<li class="indx"><a id="semantic_changes"></a>semantic changes, <a href="#Page_174">174</a> f., <a href="#Page_274">274</a> ff.</li> - -<li class="indx">Semitic, <a href="#Page_36">36</a>, <a href="#Page_52">52</a></li> - -<li class="indx">sentences, <a href="#Page_133">133</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">the earliest, <a href="#Page_439">439</a> ff.;</li> -<li class="isub1">sentence stress, <a href="#Page_272">272</a></li> - -<li class="indx">separative linguistics, <a href="#Page_67">67</a></li> - -<li class="indx"><i>seqw-</i>, <a href="#Page_306">306</a> f.</li> - -<li class="indx">sex, <a href="#Page_146">146</a>, <a href="#Page_237">237</a> ff.;</li> -<li class="isub1">cf. gender</li> - -<li class="indx">shifters, <a href="#Page_123">123</a></li> - -<li class="indx">shortening, <a href="#Page_328">328</a> f.;</li> -<li class="isub1">cf. <a href="#stump-words">stump-words</a></li> - -<li class="indx">signification, how apprehended, <a href="#Page_113">113</a> ff.;</li> -<li class="isub1">cf. <a href="#semantic_changes">semantic changes</a></li> - -<li class="indx">significative sounds preserved, <a href="#Page_267">267</a> f., <a href="#Page_271">271</a>, <a href="#Page_287">287</a></li> - -<li class="indx">similarities cause confusion, <a href="#Page_120">120</a> f.</li> - -<li class="indx">simplification, <a href="#Page_332">332</a> ff.</li> - -<li class="indx">singing, <a href="#Page_420">420</a>, <a href="#Page_432">432</a> ff.</li> - -<li class="indx">slang, <a href="#Page_247">247</a>, <a href="#Page_299">299</a> f.</li> - -<li class="indx">small, words for, <a href="#Page_402">402</a></li> - -<li class="indx">smile, <a href="#Page_278">278</a></li> - -<li class="indx"><i>so</i>, <a href="#Page_250">250</a></li> - -<li class="indx"><span lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Société de Linguistique</span>, <a href="#Page_96">96</a>, <a href="#Page_412">412</a></li> - -<li class="indx"><i>son</i>, E., <a href="#Page_120">120</a>, <a href="#Page_286">286</a></li> - -<li class="indx">songs, primitive, <a href="#Page_420">420</a>, <a href="#Page_432">432</a> ff.</li> - -<li class="indx"><a id="sound_changes"></a>sound changes, <i>passim</i>;</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>see</i> especially <a href="#Page_161">161</a> ff., <a href="#Page_191">191</a> ff., <a href="#Page_242">242</a> ff., <a href="#Page_255">255</a> ff.</li> - -<li class="indx"><a id="sound_laws"></a>sound laws, <a href="#Page_93">93</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">in children, <a href="#Page_106">106</a> f.;</li> -<li class="isub1">extension and metamorphosis, <a href="#Page_290">290</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">destructive, <a href="#Page_289">289</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">spreading, <a href="#Page_291">291</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">in the science of etymology, <a href="#Page_295">295</a> ff.</li> - -<li class="indx">sound-shift, Gothonic, <i>see</i> <a href="#consonant-shift">consonant-shift</a></li> - -<li class="indx">special terms in primitive speech, <a href="#Page_429">429</a> ff.</li> - -<li class="indx">speed of utterance, <a href="#Page_258">258</a></li> - -<li class="indx">spelling pronunciations, <a href="#Page_294">294</a></li> - -<li class="indx">splitting, <i>see</i> <a href="#differentiations">differentiation</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Spoonerism, <a href="#Page_280">280</a></li> - -<li class="indx">stable and unstable sounds, <a href="#Page_199">199</a> f.</li> - -<li class="indx">Steinthal, <a href="#Page_79">79</a>, <a href="#Page_87">87</a></li> - -<li class="indx">strengthening of sounds, <a href="#Page_404">404</a> f.</li> - -<li class="indx"><a id="stress"></a>stress, Aryan, <a href="#Page_93">93</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Gothonic, <a href="#Page_195">195</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">nature and influence of, <a href="#Page_271">271</a> ff.</li> - -<li class="indx"><i lang="de" xml:lang="de">stumm</i>, <a href="#Page_311">311</a></li> - -<li class="indx"><a id="stump-words"></a>stump-words, <a href="#Page_108">108</a>, <a href="#Page_169">169</a> f.</li> - -<li class="indx">substantive, <i>see</i> <a href="#nominal">nominal</a> <i>and</i> <a href="#flexion">flexion</a></li> - -<li class="indx">substratum theory, <a href="#Page_191">191</a> ff.</li> - -<li class="indx">subtraction, <a href="#Page_173">173</a></li> - -<li class="indx"><a id="suffixes"></a>suffixes, origin, <a href="#Page_376">376</a> f.;</li> -<li class="isub1">extension, <a href="#Page_386">386</a> f.;</li> -<li class="isub1">tainting, <a href="#Page_388">388</a></li> - -<li class="indx">suggestiveness, <a href="#Page_408">408</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">cf. <a href="#symbolism">symbolism</a></li> - -<li class="indx"><i>suppletivwesen</i>, <a href="#Page_426">426</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Sweet, <a href="#Page_97">97</a>, <a href="#Page_161">161</a>, <a href="#Page_264">264</a></li> - -<li class="indx">syllables, number of, <a href="#Page_330">330</a></li> - -<li class="indx"><a id="symbolism"></a>symbolism, <a href="#Page_396">396</a> ff.</li> - -<li class="indx">syntax, <a href="#Page_66">66</a>, <a href="#Page_95">95</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">foreign influence, <a href="#Page_214">214</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">blends, <a href="#Page_282">282</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">simplification, <a href="#Page_340">340</a></li> - -<li class="indx">synthetic languages, <a href="#Page_36">36</a>, <a href="#Page_334">334</a> ff., <a href="#Page_421">421</a> f.</li> - - -<li class="ifrst"><i>ta</i>, <a href="#Page_159">159</a></li> - -<li class="indx">tabu, <a href="#Page_239">239</a> ff., <a href="#Page_431">431</a></li> - -<li class="indx">tainting of suffixes, <a href="#Page_388">388</a></li> - -<li class="indx"><i>tata</i>, <a href="#Page_158">158</a></li> - -<li class="indx"><i>-teer</i>, suffix, <a href="#Page_388">388</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Telugu, <a href="#Page_301">301</a></li> - -<li class="indx"><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_448" id="Page_448">[448]</a></span>tempo, <a href="#Page_258">258</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Teutonic, <i>see</i> <a href="#Gothonic">Gothonic</a></li> - -<li class="indx"><i>th</i> becomes <i>f</i>, <i>v</i>, <a href="#Page_167">167</a></li> - -<li class="indx"><i>they</i> for <i>he or she</i>, <a href="#Page_347">347</a></li> - -<li class="indx"><i>this</i> and <i>that</i>, <a href="#Page_403">403</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Thomson, <a href="#Page_90">90</a> n., <a href="#Page_267">267</a>, <a href="#Page_427">427</a></li> - -<li class="indx">threshold, under the, <a href="#Page_138">138</a></li> - -<li class="indx"><i>ti</i>, <a href="#Page_358">358</a> f.</li> - -<li class="indx">time, a child’s conception of, <a href="#Page_120">120</a></li> - -<li class="indx"><a id="tone"></a>tone, <a href="#Page_111">111</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">in Chinese, <a href="#Page_369">369</a>, <a href="#Page_370">370</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">in Danish dialect, <a href="#Page_371">371</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">in primitive languages, <a href="#Page_419">419</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Tooke, Horne, <a href="#Page_49">49</a></li> - -<li class="indx">translation-loans, <a href="#Page_215">215</a></li> - -<li class="indx">translators introduce foreign words, <a href="#Page_210">210</a></li> - -<li class="indx"><i>tripos</i>, <a href="#Page_115">115</a></li> - -<li class="indx">twins having separate language, <a href="#Page_185">185</a> f.</li> - - -<li class="ifrst"><i>u</i>, French, <a href="#Page_192">192</a> ff.;</li> -<li class="isub1">English, <a href="#Page_290">290</a> f.</li> - -<li class="indx">umlaut, <a href="#Page_37">37</a></li> - -<li class="indx">understanding, a baby’s, <a href="#Page_113">113</a> f.</li> - -<li class="indx">units of language, <a href="#Page_422">422</a></li> - - -<li class="ifrst">value, influence on phonetic development, <a href="#Page_266">266</a> ff.</li> - -<li class="indx"><a id="verb"></a>verb, substantive, <a href="#Page_48">48</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">flexional forms, <a href="#Page_130">130</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">simplification, <a href="#Page_332">332</a> ff.;</li> -<li class="isub1">concord, <a href="#Page_335">335</a></li> - -<li class="indx">verbal character of roots, <a href="#Page_374">374</a> f.</li> - -<li class="indx">Verner, <a href="#Page_93">93</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Verner’s Law, <a href="#Page_195">195</a>, <a href="#Page_197">197</a> f.</li> - -<li class="indx">vocabulary, extent of, <a href="#Page_124">124</a> ff.;</li> -<li class="isub1">in primitive speech, <a href="#Page_429">429</a></li> - -<li class="indx">voicing of consonants, in Gothonic and English, <a href="#Page_198">198</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">symbolic, <a href="#Page_405">405</a></li> - -<li class="indx">vowel-harmony, <a href="#Page_280">280</a></li> - -<li class="indx">vowels, number of Aryan, <a href="#Page_44">44</a>, <a href="#Page_52">52</a>, <a href="#Page_91">91</a></li> - -<li class="indx">vulgar speech, <a href="#Page_261">261</a>, <a href="#Page_299">299</a></li> - - -<li class="ifrst">wars, influence on language, <a href="#Page_260">260</a></li> - -<li class="indx">weak preterit, <a href="#Page_51">51</a>, <a href="#Page_381">381</a></li> - -<li class="indx">weakening of words, <a href="#Page_266">266</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Wessely, <a href="#Page_197">197</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Wheeler, <a href="#Page_293">293</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Whitney, <a href="#Page_88">88</a>, <a href="#Page_323">323</a>, <a href="#Page_367">367</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Windisch, <a href="#Page_208">208</a></li> - -<li class="indx"><a id="women"></a>women as language teachers, <a href="#Page_142">142</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">women’s language, <a href="#Page_237">237</a> ff.</li> - -<li class="indx">word, what constitutes one, <a href="#Page_125">125</a>, <a href="#Page_422">422</a> f.</li> - -<li class="indx">word-division, <a href="#Page_132">132</a>, <a href="#Page_173">173</a> f.</li> - -<li class="indx">word-formation, <a href="#Page_131">131</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">cf. <a href="#invention">invention</a>, <a href="#suffixes">suffixes</a></li> - -<li class="indx">word-order, <a href="#Page_344">344</a> ff., <a href="#Page_355">355</a> ff.;</li> -<li class="isub1">in Chinese, <a href="#Page_369">369</a> ff.</li> - -<li class="indx">worthless words or sounds, <a href="#Page_266">266</a> ff.</li> - -<li class="indx">Wundt, <a href="#Page_98">98</a>, <a href="#Page_258">258</a></li> - - -<li class="ifrst"><i>yesterday</i>, <a href="#Page_120">120</a></li> - -<li class="indx">yo-he-ho theory, <a href="#Page_415">415</a></li> - -<li class="indx"><i>you</i> for <i>I</i>, <a href="#Page_124">124</a></li> - -<li class="indx"><a id="young-grammarians"></a>young-grammarians, <a href="#Page_93">93</a></li> - - -<li class="ifrst">Zulu, <i>see</i> <a href="#Bantu">Bantu</a></li></ul> - - -<p class="p2 center"> -<i>Printed in Great Britain by</i><br /> -UNWIN BROTHERS, LIMITED WOKING AND LONDON -</p> - - - - -<hr class="tb" /> -<div class="chapter"></div> -<div class="footnotes"> - -<h2 class="nobreak"><a name="FOOTNOTES" id="FOOTNOTES">FOOTNOTES</a></h2> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_1_1" id="Footnote_1_1"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_1"><span class="label">[1]</span></a> See his essay on Herder’s “<span lang="de" xml:lang="de">Ursprung der sprache</span>” in <cite>Modern Philology</cite>, -5. 117 (1907).</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_2_2" id="Footnote_2_2"></a><a href="#FNanchor_2_2"><span class="label">[2]</span></a> It dates back to Vulcanius, 1597; see Streitberg, IF 35. 182.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_3_3" id="Footnote_3_3"></a><a href="#FNanchor_3_3"><span class="label">[3]</span></a> I have given a life of Rask and an appraisement of his work in the -small volume <cite>Rasmus Rask</cite> (Copenhagen, Gyldendal, 1918). See also Vilh. -Thomsen, <cite lang="da" xml:lang="da">Samlede afhandlinger</cite>, 1. 47 ff. and 125 ff. A good and full -account of Rask’s work is found in Raumer, <cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Gesch.</cite>; cf. also Paul, <i>Gr.</i> -Recent short appreciations of his genius may be read in Trombetti, -<cite lang="it" xml:lang="it">Come si fa la critica</cite>, 1907, p. 41, Meillet, LI, p. 415, Hirt, Idg, pp. 74 -and 578.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_4_4" id="Footnote_4_4"></a><a href="#FNanchor_4_4"><span class="label">[4]</span></a> Only in one subordinate point did Rask make a mistake (<i>b</i> = <i>b</i>), which -is all the more venial as there are extremely few examples of this sound. -Bredsdorff (<cite lang="da" xml:lang="da">Aarsagerne</cite>, 1821, p. 21) evidently had the law from Rask, and -gives it in the comprehensive formula which Paul (Gr. 1. 86) misses in Rask -and gives as Grimm’s meritorious improvement on Rask. “The Germanic -family has most often aspirates where Greek has tenues, tenues where it -has mediæ, and again mediæ where it has aspirates, e.g. <i>fod</i>, Gr. <i>pous</i>; <i>horn</i>, -Gr. <i>keras</i>; <i>þrír</i>, Gr. <i>treis</i>; <i>padde</i>, Gr. <i>batrakhos</i>; <i>kone</i>, Gr. <i>gunē</i>; <i>ti</i>, Gr. <i>deka</i>; -<i>bærer</i>, Gr. <i>pherō</i>; <i>galde</i>, Gr. <i>kholē</i>; <i>dør</i>, Gr. <i>thura</i>.” To the word ‘horn’ was -appended a foot-note to the effect that <i>h</i> without doubt here originally was -the German <i>ch</i>-sound. This was one year before Grimm stated his law!</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_5_5" id="Footnote_5_5"></a><a href="#FNanchor_5_5"><span class="label">[5]</span></a> The muddling of the negatives is Grimm’s, not the translator’s.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_6_6" id="Footnote_6_6"></a><a href="#FNanchor_6_6"><span class="label">[6]</span></a> I am therefore surprised to find that in a recent article (<cite>Am. Journ. -of Philol.</cite> 39. 415, 1918) Collitz praises Grimm’s view in preference to Rask’s -because he saw “an inherent connexion between the various processes of -the shifting,” which were “subdivisions of one great law in which the formula -T:A:M may be used to illustrate the shifting (in a single language) of three -different groups of consonants and the result of a double or threefold shifting -(in three different languages) of a single group of consonants. This great -law was unknown to Rask.” Collitz recognizes that “Grimm’s law will -hold good only if we accept the term ‘aspirate’ in the broad sense in which -it is employed by J. Grimm”—but ‘broad’ here means ‘wrong’ or -‘unscientific.’ There is no <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">kreislauf</i> in the case of initial <i>k</i> = <i>h</i>; only in -a few of the nine series do we find three distinct stages (as in <i>tres</i>, <i>three</i>, <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">drei</i>); -here we have in Danish three stages, of which the third is a reversal to the -first (<i lang="da" xml:lang="da">tre</i>); in E. <i>mother</i> we have five stages: <i>t</i>, <i>þ</i>, <i>ð</i>, <i>d</i>, (OE. <i lang="ang" xml:lang="ang">modor</i>) and again -<i>ð</i>. Is there an “inherent connexion between the various processes of this -shifting” too?</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_7_7" id="Footnote_7_7"></a><a href="#FNanchor_7_7"><span class="label">[7]</span></a> Probably under the influence of Humboldt, who wrote to him (September -1826): “<span lang="de" xml:lang="de">Absichtlich grammatisch ist gewiss kein vokalwechsel.</span>”</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_8_8" id="Footnote_8_8"></a><a href="#FNanchor_8_8"><span class="label">[8]</span></a> Humboldt’s relation to Bopp’s general ideas is worth studying; see -his letters to Bopp, printed as Nachtrag to S. Lefman’s <cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Franz Bopp, sein -leben und seine wissenschaft</cite> (Berlin, 1897). He is (p. 5) on the whole of -Bopp’s opinion that flexions have arisen through agglutination of syllables, -the independent meaning of which was lost; still, he is not certain that all -flexion can be explained in that way, and especially doubts it in the case -of ‘umlaut,’ under which term he here certainly includes ‘ablaut,’ as -seen by his reference (p. 12) to Greek future <i>stalô</i> from <i>stéllō</i>; he adds that -“some flexions are at the same time so insignificant and so widely spread -in languages that I should be inclined to call them original; for example, -our <i>i</i> of the dative and <i>m</i> of the same case, both of which by their sharper -sound seem intended to call attention to the peculiar nature of this case, -which does not, like the other cases, denote a simple, but a double relation” -(repeated p. 10). Humboldt doubts Bopp’s identification of the temporal -augment with the <i>a</i> privativum. He says (p. 14) that cases often originate -from prepositions, as in American languages and in Basque, and that he has -always explained our genitive, as in G. <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">manne-s</i>, as a remnant of <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">aus</i>. This -is evidently wrong, as the <i>s</i> of <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">aus</i> is a special High German development -from <i>t</i>, while the <i>s</i> of the genitive is also found in languages which do not -share in this development of <i>t</i>. But the remark is interesting because, apart -from the historical proof to the contrary which we happen to possess in this -case, the derivation is no whit worse than many of the explanations resorted -to by adherents of the agglutinative theory. But Humboldt goes on to say -that in Greek and Latin he is not prepared to maintain that one single -case is to be explained in this way. Humboldt probably had some influence -on Bopp’s view of the weak preterit, for he is skeptical with regard to the <i>did</i> -explanation and inclines to connect the ending with the participle in <i>t</i>.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_9_9" id="Footnote_9_9"></a><a href="#FNanchor_9_9"><span class="label">[9]</span></a> Humboldt seems to be the inventor of this term (1821; see Streitberg, -IF 35. 191).</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_10_10" id="Footnote_10_10"></a><a href="#FNanchor_10_10"><span class="label">[10]</span></a> It has been objected to the use of Aryan in this wide sense that the -name is also used in the restricted sense of Indian + Iranic; but no separate -name is needed for that small group other than Indo-Iranic.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_11_11" id="Footnote_11_11"></a><a href="#FNanchor_11_11"><span class="label">[11]</span></a> In Lefmann’s book on Bopp, pp. 292 and 299, there are some interesting -quotations on this point.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_12_12" id="Footnote_12_12"></a><a href="#FNanchor_12_12"><span class="label">[12]</span></a> For example, the correct appreciation of Scandinavian <i>o</i> sounds and -especially the recognition of syllables without any vowel, for instance, in -G. <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">mittel</i>, <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">schmeicheln</i>, E. <i>heaven</i>, <i>little</i>; this important truth was unnoticed -by linguists till Sievers in 1876 called attention to it and Brugmann in 1877 -used it in a famous article.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_13_13" id="Footnote_13_13"></a><a href="#FNanchor_13_13"><span class="label">[13]</span></a> A young German linguist, to whom I sent the pamphlet early in 1886, -wrote to me: “<span lang="de" xml:lang="de">Wenn man sich den spass machte und das ding übersetzte -mit der bemerkung, es sei vor vier jahren erschienen, wer würde einem -nicht trauen? Merkwürdig, dass solche sachen so unbemerkt, ‘dem kleinen -veilchen gleich,’ dahinschwinden können.</span>” A short time afterwards the -pamphlet was reprinted with a short preface by Vilh. Thomsen (Copenhagen, -1886).</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_14_14" id="Footnote_14_14"></a><a href="#FNanchor_14_14"><span class="label">[14]</span></a> In numerous papers in <cite>North Am. Review</cite> and elsewhere, and finally -in the pamphlet <cite>Max Müller and the Science of Language, a Criticism</cite> (New -York, 1892). Müller’s reply to the earlier attacks is found in <cite>Chips from -a German Workshop</cite>, vol. iv.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_15_15" id="Footnote_15_15"></a><a href="#FNanchor_15_15"><span class="label">[15]</span></a> Who was the discoverer of the palatal law? This has been hotly -discussed, and as the law was in so far anticipated by other discoveries of -the ’seventies as to be “in the air,” it is perhaps futile to try to fix the -paternity on any single man. However, it seems now perfectly clear that -Vilhelm Thomsen was the first to mention it in his lectures (1875), but -unfortunately the full and able paper in which he intended to lay it before -the world was delayed for a couple of years and then kept in his drawers -when he heard that Johannes Schmidt was preparing a paper on the same -subject: it was printed in 1920 in the second volume of his <cite lang="da" xml:lang="da">Samlede Afhandlinger</cite> -(from the original manuscript). Esaias Tegnér had found the law -independently and had printed five sheets of a book <cite lang="sv" xml:lang="sv">De ariska språkens -palataler</cite>, which he withdrew when he found that Collitz and de Saussure -had expressed similar views. Karl Verner, too, had independently arrived -at the same results; see his <cite lang="da" xml:lang="da">Afhandlinger og Breve</cite>, 109 ff., 305.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_16_16" id="Footnote_16_16"></a><a href="#FNanchor_16_16"><span class="label">[16]</span></a> “<span lang="de" xml:lang="de">Es ist besser, bei solchen versuchen zu irren als gar nicht darüber -nachzudenken</span>,” Curtius, K 145.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_17_17" id="Footnote_17_17"></a><a href="#FNanchor_17_17"><span class="label">[17]</span></a> In this book the age of a child is indicated by stating the number of -years and months completed: 1.6 thus means “in the seventh month of -the second year,” etc.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_18_18" id="Footnote_18_18"></a><a href="#FNanchor_18_18"><span class="label">[18]</span></a> An American child said <i>autonobile</i> [ɔtənobi·l] with partial assimilation -of <i>m</i> to the point-stop <i>t</i>.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_19_19" id="Footnote_19_19"></a><a href="#FNanchor_19_19"><span class="label">[19]</span></a> Cf. Beach-la-Mar, below, Ch. XII § 1.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_20_20" id="Footnote_20_20"></a><a href="#FNanchor_20_20"><span class="label">[20]</span></a> Cf. below on the disappearance of the word <i>son</i> because it sounds like -<i>sun</i> (Ch. XV. § <a href="#XV_7">7</a>).</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_21_21" id="Footnote_21_21"></a><a href="#FNanchor_21_21"><span class="label">[21]</span></a> Cf. the fuller treatment of this question in GS ch. ix.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_22_22" id="Footnote_22_22"></a><a href="#FNanchor_22_22"><span class="label">[22]</span></a> H. G. Wells writes (<cite>Soul of a Bishop</cite>, 94): “He was lugging things -now into speech that so far had been <i>scarcely above the threshold</i> of his conscious -thought.” Here we see the wrong interpretation of the preposition <i>over</i> -dragging with it the synonym <i>above</i>.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_23_23" id="Footnote_23_23"></a><a href="#FNanchor_23_23"><span class="label">[23]</span></a> -</p> - -<div class="poetry-container"><div class="poetry"><div class="stanza"> -<div class="verse indent20">Women know</div> - <div class="verse">The way to rear up children, (to be just)</div> - <div class="verse">They know a simple, merry, tender knack</div> - <div class="verse">Of stringing pretty words that make no sense,</div> - <div class="verse">And kissing full sense into empty words,</div> - <div class="verse">Which things are corals to cut life upon,</div> - <div class="verse">Although such trifles: children learn by such</div> - <div class="verse">Love’s holy earnest in a pretty play</div> - <div class="verse">And get not over-early solemnized ...</div> - <div class="verse">Such good do mothers. Fathers love as well</div> - <div class="verse">—Mine did, I know—but still with heavier brains,</div> - <div class="verse">And wills more consciously responsible,</div> - <div class="verse">And not as wisely, since less foolishly.</div> - <div class="sig"><span class="smcap">Elizabeth Browning</span>: <cite>Aurora Leigh</cite>, 10.</div> -</div></div></div> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_24_24" id="Footnote_24_24"></a><a href="#FNanchor_24_24"><span class="label">[24]</span></a> This is not the place to speak of the way in which prevalent methods -of teaching foreign languages can be improved. A slavish copying of the -manner in which English children learn English is impracticable, and if -it were practicable it would demand more time than anyone can devote -to the purpose. One has to make the most of the advantages which the -pupils possess over babies, thus, their being able to read, their power of more -sustained attention, etc. Phonetic explanation of the new sounds and -phonetic transcription have done wonders to overcome difficulties of pronunciation. -But in other respects it is possible to some extent to assimilate -the teaching of a foreign language to the method pursued by the child in -its first years: one should not merely sprinkle the pupil, but plunge him -right down into the sea of language and enable him to swim by himself as -soon as possible, relying on the fact that a great deal will arrange itself in -the brain without the inculcation of too many special rules and explanations. -For details I may refer to my book, <cite>How to Teach a Foreign Language</cite> (London, -George Allen and Unwin).</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_25_25" id="Footnote_25_25"></a><a href="#FNanchor_25_25"><span class="label">[25]</span></a> Hence, also, the second or third child in a family will, as a rule, learn -to speak more rapidly than the eldest.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_26_26" id="Footnote_26_26"></a><a href="#FNanchor_26_26"><span class="label">[26]</span></a> I translate this from Ido, see <cite>The International Language</cite>, May 1912.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_27_27" id="Footnote_27_27"></a><a href="#FNanchor_27_27"><span class="label">[27]</span></a> I have collected a bibliographical list of such ‘secret languages’ in -<cite lang="da" xml:lang="da">Nord. Tidsskrift f. Filologi</cite>, 4r. vol. 5.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_28_28" id="Footnote_28_28"></a><a href="#FNanchor_28_28"><span class="label">[28]</span></a> I subjoin a few additional examples. Basque <i lang="eu" xml:lang="eu">aita</i> ‘father,’ <i lang="eu" xml:lang="eu">ama</i> -‘mother,’ <i lang="eu" xml:lang="eu">anaya</i> ‘brother’ (<cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Zeitsch. f. rom. Phil.</cite> 17, 146). Manchu <i>ama</i> -‘father,’ <i>eme</i> ‘mother’ (the vowel relation as in <i>haha</i> ‘man,’ <i>hehe</i> ‘woman,’ -Gabelentz, S 389). Kutenai <i>pa·</i> ‘brother’s daughter,’ <i>papa</i> ‘grandmother -(said by male), grandfather, grandson,’ <i>pat!</i> ‘nephew,’ <i>ma</i> ‘mother,’ <i>nana</i> -‘younger sister’ (of girl), <i>alnana</i> ‘sisters,’ <i>tite</i> ‘mother-in-law,’ <i>titu</i> ‘father’ -(of male)—(Boas, <cite>Kutenai Tales</cite>, Bureau of Am. Ethnol. 59, 1918). Cf. -also Sapir, “Kinship Terms of the Kootenay Indians” (<cite>Amer. Anthropologist</cite>, -vol. 20). In the same writer’s <cite>Yana Terms of Relationship</cite> (Univ. of California, -1918) there seems to be very little from this source.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_29_29" id="Footnote_29_29"></a><a href="#FNanchor_29_29"><span class="label">[29]</span></a> <i>Tata</i> is also used for ‘a walk’ (to go out for a ta-ta, or to go out ta-tas) -and for ‘a hat’—meanings that may very well have developed from the -child’s saying these syllables when going out or preparing to go out.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_30_30" id="Footnote_30_30"></a><a href="#FNanchor_30_30"><span class="label">[30]</span></a> The Swede Bolin says that his child said <i>tatt-tatt</i>, which he interprets -as <i>tack</i>, even when handing something to others.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_31_31" id="Footnote_31_31"></a><a href="#FNanchor_31_31"><span class="label">[31]</span></a> The views advanced in § <a href="#VIII_8">8</a> have some points in contact with the remarks -found in Stern’s ch. xix, p. 300, only that I lay more stress on the arbitrary -interpretation of the child’s meaningless syllables on the part of the grown-ups, -and that I cannot approve his theory of the <i>m</i> syllables as ‘centripetal’ -and the <i>p</i> syllables as ‘centrifugal affective-volitional natural sounds.’ -Paul (P § 127) says that the nursery-language with its <i>bowwow</i>, <i>papa</i>, <i>mama</i>, -etc., “is not the invention of the children; it is handed over to them just -as any other language”; he overlooks the share children have themselves -in these words, or in some of them; nor are they, as he says, formed by -the grown-ups with a purely pedagogical purpose. Nor can I find that -Wundt’s chapter “<span lang="de" xml:lang="de">Angebliche worterfindung des kindes</span>” (S 1. 273-287) -contains decisive arguments. Curtius (K 88) thinks that Gr. <i>patēr</i> was -first shortened into <i>pâ</i> and this then extended into <i>páppa</i>—but certainly -it is rather the other way round.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_32_32" id="Footnote_32_32"></a><a href="#FNanchor_32_32"><span class="label">[32]</span></a> The same inconsistency is found in Dauzat, who in 1910 thought that -nothing, and in 1912 that nearly everything, was due to imperfect imitation -by the child (V 22 ff., Ph 53, cf. 3). Wechssler (L p. 86) quotes passages -from Bremer, Passy, Rousselot and Wallensköld, in which the chief cause -of sound changes is attributed to the child; to these might be added Storm -(<cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Phonetische Studien</cite>, 5. 200) and A. Thomson (IF 24, 1909, p. 9), probably -also Grammont (<cite lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Mél. linguist.</cite> 61). Many writers seem to imagine that -the question is settled when they are able to adduce a certain number of -<em>parallel</em> changes in the pronunciation of some child and in the historical -evolution of languages.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_33_33" id="Footnote_33_33"></a><a href="#FNanchor_33_33"><span class="label">[33]</span></a> See E. Herzog, <cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Streitfragen der roman. philologie</cite>, i. (1904), p. 57—I -modify his symbols a little.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_34_34" id="Footnote_34_34"></a><a href="#FNanchor_34_34"><span class="label">[34]</span></a> In Russian <i>Marfa</i>, <i>Fyodor</i>, etc., we also have <i>f</i> corresponding to original -<i>þ</i>, but in this case it is not a transition within one and the same language, -but an imperfect imitation on the part of the (adult!) Russians of a sound -in a foreign language (Greek <i>th</i>) which was not found in their own language.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_35_35" id="Footnote_35_35"></a><a href="#FNanchor_35_35"><span class="label">[35]</span></a> Reduplications and assimilations at a distance, as in Fr. <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">tante</i> from -the older <i>ante</i> (whence E. <i>aunt</i>, from Lat. <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">amita</i>) and <i>porpentine</i> (frequent -in this and analogous forms in Elizabethan writers) for <i>porcupine</i> (<i>porkepine</i>, -<i>porkespine</i>) are different from the ordinary assimilations of neighbouring -sounds in occurring much less frequently in the speech of adults than in -children; cf., however, below, Ch. XV <a href="#XV_4">4</a>.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_36_36" id="Footnote_36_36"></a><a href="#FNanchor_36_36"><span class="label">[36]</span></a> Karl Sundén, in his diligent and painstaking book on <cite>Elliptical Words -in Modern English</cite> (Upsala, 1904) [i.e. clipped proper names, for common -names are not treated in the long lists given], mentions only two examples -of surnames in which the final part is kept (<i>Bart</i> for Islebart, <i>Piggy</i> for -Guineapig, from obscure novels), though he has scores of examples in which -the beginning is preserved.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_37_37" id="Footnote_37_37"></a><a href="#FNanchor_37_37"><span class="label">[37]</span></a> It is often said that stress is decisive of what part is left out in word-clippings, -and from an a priori point of view this is what we should expect. -But as a matter of fact we find in many instances that syllables with weak -stress are preserved, e.g. in <i>Mac</i>(donald), <i>Pen</i>(dennis), the <i>Cri</i>, <i>Vic</i>, <i>Nap</i>, -<i>Nat</i> for Nathaniel (orig. pronounced with [t], not [þ]), <i>Val</i> for Percival, -<i>Trix</i>, etc. The middle is never kept as such with omission of the beginning -and the ending; <i>Liz</i> (whence <i>Lizzy</i>) has not arisen at one stroke from Elizabeth, -but mediately through <i>Eliz</i>. Some of the adults’ clippings originate -through abbreviations in <em>writing</em>, thus probably most of the college terms -(<i>exam</i>, <i>trig</i>, etc.), thus also journalists’ clippings like <i>ad</i> for advertisement, -<i>par</i> for paragraph; cf. also <i>caps</i> for capitals. On stump-words see also -below, Ch. XIV, §§ <a href="#XIV_8">8</a> and <a href="#XIV_9">9</a>.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_38_38" id="Footnote_38_38"></a><a href="#FNanchor_38_38"><span class="label">[38]</span></a> See my MEG ii. 5. 6, and my paper on “<span lang="da" xml:lang="da">Subtraktionsdannelser</span>,” in -<cite lang="da" xml:lang="da">Festskrift til Vilh. Thomsen</cite>, 1894, p. 1 ff.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_39_39" id="Footnote_39_39"></a><a href="#FNanchor_39_39"><span class="label">[39]</span></a> Semantic changes through ambiguous syntactic combinations have -recently been studied especially by Carl Collin; see his <cite>Semasiologiska studier</cite>, -1906, and <cite lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Le Développement de Sens du Suffixe -ATA</cite>, Lund, 1918, ch. iii -and iv. Collin there treats especially of the transition from abstract to -concrete nouns; he does not, as I have done above, speak of the rôle of -the younger generation in such changes.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_40_40" id="Footnote_40_40"></a><a href="#FNanchor_40_40"><span class="label">[40]</span></a> I know perfectly well that in these and in other similar words there -were reasons for the original word disappearing as unfit (shortness, possibility -of mistakes through similarity with other words, etc.). What interests -me here is the fact that the substitute is a word of the nursery.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_41_41" id="Footnote_41_41"></a><a href="#FNanchor_41_41"><span class="label">[41]</span></a> “<span lang="de" xml:lang="de">Einige namentlich in der ältern litteratur vorkommende angaben -über kinder, die sich zusammen aufwachsend eine eigene sprache gebildet -haben sollen, sind wohl ein für allemal in das gebiet der fabel zu verweisen</span>” -(S 1. 286).</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_42_42" id="Footnote_42_42"></a><a href="#FNanchor_42_42"><span class="label">[42]</span></a> Cf. against the assumption of Keltic influence in this instance Meyer-Lübke, -<cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Die Romanischen Sprachen, Kultur der Gegenwart</cite>, p. 457, and Ettmayer -in Streitberg’s <cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Gesch.</cite> 2. 265. H. Mutschmann, <cite>Phonology of the North-Eastern -Scotch Dialect</cite>, 1909, p. 53, thinks that the fronting of <i>u</i> in Scotch -is similar to that of Latin <i>ū</i> on Gallic territory, and like it is ascribable to -the Keltic inhabitants: he forgets, however, that the corresponding fronting -is not found in the Keltic spoken in Scotland. Moreover, the complicated -Scotch phenomena cannot be compared with the French transition, for -the sound of [u] remains in many cases, and [i] generally corresponds to -earlier [o], whatever the explanation may be.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_43_43" id="Footnote_43_43"></a><a href="#FNanchor_43_43"><span class="label">[43]</span></a> Curiously enough, Feist uses this argument himself against Hirt in -his earlier paper, PBB 37. 121.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_44_44" id="Footnote_44_44"></a><a href="#FNanchor_44_44"><span class="label">[44]</span></a> Feist, on the other hand (PBB 36. 329), makes the Kelts responsible -for the shift from <i>p</i> to <i>f</i>, because initial <i>p</i> disappears in Keltic: but disappearance -is not the same thing as being changed into a spirant, and there -is no necessity for assuming that the sound before disappearing had been -changed into <i>f</i>. Besides, it is characteristic of the Gothonic shift that it -affects all stops equally, without regard to the place of articulation, while -the Keltic change affects only the one sound <i>p</i>.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_45_45" id="Footnote_45_45"></a><a href="#FNanchor_45_45"><span class="label">[45]</span></a> ME. <i lang="enm" xml:lang="enm">knowleche</i>, <i lang="enm" xml:lang="enm">stonës</i> [stɔ·nes], <i lang="enm" xml:lang="enm">off</i>, <i lang="enm" xml:lang="enm">with</i> [wiþ] become MnE. <i>knowledge</i>, -<i>stones</i> [stounz], <i>of</i> [ɔv, əv], <i>with</i> [wið], etc.; cf. also <i>possess</i>, <i>discern</i> with [z], -<i>exert</i> with [gz], but <i>exercise</i> with [ks]. See my <cite lang="da" xml:lang="da">Studier over eng. kasus</cite>, 1891, -178 ff., now MEG i. 6. 5 ff., and (for the phonetic explanation) LPh p. 121.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_46_46" id="Footnote_46_46"></a><a href="#FNanchor_46_46"><span class="label">[46]</span></a> Sharp tenues and aspirated tenues may alternate even in the life of -one individual, as I have observed in the case of my own son, who at the -age of 1.9 used the sharp French sounds, but five months later substituted -strongly aspirated <i>p</i>, <i>t</i>, <i>k</i>, with even stronger aspiration than the usual Danish -sounds, which it took him ten or eleven months to learn with perfect certainty.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_47_47" id="Footnote_47_47"></a><a href="#FNanchor_47_47"><span class="label">[47]</span></a> I use the terms <i>loan-words</i> and <i>borrowed words</i> because they are convenient -and firmly established, not because they are exact. There are two -essential respects in which linguistic borrowing differs from the borrowing -of, say, a knife or money: the lender does not deprive himself of the use -of the word any more than if it had not been borrowed by the other party, and -the borrower is under no obligation to return the word at any future time. -Linguistic ‘borrowing’ is really nothing but imitation, and the only way -in which it differs from a child’s imitation of its parents’ speech is that here -something is imitated which forms a part of a speech that is not imitated -as a whole.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_48_48" id="Footnote_48_48"></a><a href="#FNanchor_48_48"><span class="label">[48]</span></a> The etymology of this name is rather curious: Portuguese <i lang="pt" xml:lang="pt">bicho de mar</i>, -from <i lang="pt" xml:lang="pt">bicho</i> ‘worm,’ the name of the sea slug or trepang, which is eaten as a -luxury by the Chinese, was in French modified into <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">bêche de mer</i>, ‘sea-spade’; -this by a second popular etymology was made into English -<i>beach-la-mar</i> as if a compound of <i>beach</i>. -</p> -<p> -My sources are H. Schuchardt, KS v. (Wiener Academie, 1883); id. in -ESt xiii. 158 ff., 1889; W. Churchill, <cite>Beach-la-Mar, the Jargon or Trade -Speech of the Western Pacific</cite> (Carnegie Institution of Washington, 1911); -Jack London, <cite>The Cruise of the Snark</cite> (Mills & Boon, London, 1911?), -G. Landtman in <cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Neuphilologische Mitteilungen</cite> (Helsingfors, 1918, p. 62 ff. -Landtman calls it “the Pidgin-English of British New Guinea,” where he -learnt it, though it really differs from Pidgin-English proper; see below); -“The Jargon English of Torres Straits” in <cite>Reports of the Cambridge -Anthropological Expedition to Torres Straits</cite>, vol. iii. p. 251 ff., Cambridge, -1907.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_49_49" id="Footnote_49_49"></a><a href="#FNanchor_49_49"><span class="label">[49]</span></a> Similarly the missionary G. Brown thought that <i>tobi</i> was a native -word of the Duke of York Islands for ‘wash,’ till one day he accidentally -discovered that it was their pronunciation of English <i>soap</i>.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_50_50" id="Footnote_50_50"></a><a href="#FNanchor_50_50"><span class="label">[50]</span></a> There are many specimens in Charles G. Leland, <cite>Pidgin-English Sing-Song, -or Songs and Stories in the China-English Dialect, with a Vocabulary</cite> -(5th ed., London, 1900), but they make the impression of being artificially -made-up to amuse the readers, and contain a much larger proportion of -Chinese words than the rest of my sources would warrant. Besides various -articles in newspapers I have used W. Simpson, “China’s Future Place in -Philology” (<cite>Macmillan’s Magazine</cite>, November 1873) and Dr. Legge’s article -“Pigeon English” in <cite>Chambers’s Encyclopædia</cite>, 1901 (s.v. China). The -chapters devoted to Pidgin in Karl Lentzner’s <cite>Dictionary of the Slang-English -of Australia and of some Mixed Languages</cite> (Halle, 1892) give little else -but wholesale reprints of passages from some of the sources mentioned above.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_51_51" id="Footnote_51_51"></a><a href="#FNanchor_51_51"><span class="label">[51]</span></a> See <cite>An International Idiom. A Manual of the Oregon Trade Language, -or Chinook Jargon</cite>, by Horatio Hale (London, 1890). Besides this I have -used a <cite>Vocabulary of the Jargon or Trade Language of Oregon</cite> [by Lionnet] -published by the Smithsonian Institution (1853), and George Gibbs, <cite>A -Dictionary of the Chinook Jargon</cite> (Smithsonian Inst., 1863). Lionnet spells -the words according to the French fashion, while Gibbs and Hale spell them -in the English way. I have given them with the continental values of the -vowels in accordance with the indications in Hale’s glossary.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_52_52" id="Footnote_52_52"></a><a href="#FNanchor_52_52"><span class="label">[52]</span></a> See Martius, <cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Beitr. zur Ethnogr. und Sprachenkunde Amerikas</cite> (Leipzig, -1867), i. 364 ff. and ii. 23 ff.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_53_53" id="Footnote_53_53"></a><a href="#FNanchor_53_53"><span class="label">[53]</span></a> “<i>Ai</i> is the man’s diphthong, and soundeth full: <i>ei</i>, the woman’s, -and soundeth finish [i.e. fineish] in the same both sense, and vse, <i>a woman -is deintie, and feinteth soon, the man fainteth not bycause he is nothing daintie</i>.” -Thus what is now distinctive of refined as opposed to vulgar pronunciation -was then characteristic of the fair sex.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_54_54" id="Footnote_54_54"></a><a href="#FNanchor_54_54"><span class="label">[54]</span></a> There are great differences with regard to swearing between different -nations; but I think that in those countries and in those circles in which -swearing is common it is found much more extensively among men than -among women: this at any rate is true of Denmark. There is, however, a -general social movement against swearing, and now there are many men -who never swear. A friend writes to me: “The best English men hardly -swear at all.... I imagine some of our fashionable women now swear as -much as the men they consort with.”</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_55_55" id="Footnote_55_55"></a><a href="#FNanchor_55_55"><span class="label">[55]</span></a> “<span lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Où femme y a, silence n’y a.</span>” “<span lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Deux femmes font un plaid, trois -un grand caquet, quatre un plein marché.</span>” “Due donne e un’ oca fanno -una fiera” (Venice). “The tongue is the sword of a woman, and she -never lets it become rusty” (China). “The North Sea will sooner be found -wanting in water than a woman at a loss for a word” (Jutland).</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_56_56" id="Footnote_56_56"></a><a href="#FNanchor_56_56"><span class="label">[56]</span></a> The uniformity in the speech of the whole Roman Empire during the -first centuries of our Christian era was kept up, among other things, through -the habit of removing soldiers and officials from one country to the other. -This ceased later, each district being left to shift more or less for itself.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_57_57" id="Footnote_57_57"></a><a href="#FNanchor_57_57"><span class="label">[57]</span></a> “<span lang="de" xml:lang="de">Dass unsere ältesten vorfahren sich das sprechen erstaunlich unbequem -gemacht haben</span>,” Delbrück, E 155.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_58_58" id="Footnote_58_58"></a><a href="#FNanchor_58_58"><span class="label">[58]</span></a> Sometimes appearances may be deceptive: when [nr, mr] become -[ndr, mbr], it looks on the paper as if something had been added and as -if the transition therefore militated against the principle of ease: in reality, -the old and the new combinations require exactly the same amount of -muscular activity, and the change simply consists in want of precision in -the movement of the velum palati, which comes a fraction of a second too -soon. If anything, the new group is a trifle easier than the old. See LPh -5. 6 for explanation and examples (E. <i>thunder</i> from <i>þunor</i> sb., <i>þunrian</i> vb.; -<i>timber</i>, cf. Goth. <i>timrian</i>, G. <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">zimmer</i>, etc.).</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_59_59" id="Footnote_59_59"></a><a href="#FNanchor_59_59"><span class="label">[59]</span></a> This is rendered most clear by my ‘analphabetic’ notation (α means -lips, β tip of tongue, δ soft palate, velum palati, and ε glottis; 0 stands -for closed position, 1 for approximation, 3 for open position); the three -sound combinations are thus analysed (cf. my <cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Lehrbuch der Phonetik</cite>): -</p> - - - -<div class="center"> -<table class="left" border="0" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" summary=""> -<tr><td></td><td class="bright ">p</td><td> n</td><td class="bright"><span class="spacedl">p</span></td><td> m</td><td class="bright"><span class="spacedl">m</span></td><td> n</td></tr> -<tr><td>α</td><td class="bright">0</td><td> 3</td><td class="bright"><span class="spacedl">0</span></td><td> 0</td><td class="bright"><span class="spacedl">0</span></td><td> 3</td></tr> -<tr><td>β</td><td class="bright">3</td><td> 0</td><td class="bright"><span class="spacedl">3</span></td><td> 3</td><td class="bright"><span class="spacedl">3</span></td><td> 0</td></tr> -<tr><td>δ</td><td class="bright">0</td><td> 3</td><td class="bright"><span class="spacedl">0</span></td><td> 3</td><td class="bright"><span class="spacedl">3</span></td><td> 3</td></tr> -<tr><td>ε</td><td class="bright">3</td><td> 1</td><td class="bright"><span class="spacedl">3</span></td><td> 1</td><td class="bright"><span class="spacedl">1</span></td><td> 1</td></tr> -</table></div> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_60_60" id="Footnote_60_60"></a><a href="#FNanchor_60_60"><span class="label">[60]</span></a> The only clear cases of saving of time are those in which long sounds -are shortened, and even they must be looked upon as a saving of effort.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_61_61" id="Footnote_61_61"></a><a href="#FNanchor_61_61"><span class="label">[61]</span></a> In the reprint in <cite lang="da" xml:lang="da">Samlede Afhandlinger</cite>, ii. 417 (1920), a few lines are -added in which Thomsen fully accepts the explanation which I gave as far -back as 1886.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_62_62" id="Footnote_62_62"></a><a href="#FNanchor_62_62"><span class="label">[62]</span></a> The above remarks are condensed from the argument in ChE 38 ff. -Note also what is said below (Ch. XIX § 13) on the loss of Lat. final <i>-s</i> in the -Romanic languages after it had ceased to be necessary for the grammatical -understanding of sentences.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_63_63" id="Footnote_63_63"></a><a href="#FNanchor_63_63"><span class="label">[63]</span></a> Against this it has been urged that Fr. <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">oncle</i> has not preserved the -stem syllable of Lat. <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">avunculus</i> particularly well. But this objection is -a little misleading. It is quite true that at the time when the word was -first framed the syllable <i>av-</i> contained the main idea and <i>-unculus</i> was only -added to impart an endearing modification to that idea (‘dear little uncle’); -but after some time the semantic relation was altered; <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">avus</i> itself passed out -of use, while <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">avunculus</i> was handed down from generation to generation as a -ready-made whole, in which the ordinary speaker was totally unable to -suspect that <i>av-</i> was the really significative stem. He consequently treated -it exactly as any other polysyllable of the same structure, and <i>avun-</i> -(phonetically [awuŋ, auuŋ]) was naturally made into one syllable. Nothing, -of course, can be protected by a sense of its significance unless it is still -felt as significant. That hardly needs saying.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_64_64" id="Footnote_64_64"></a><a href="#FNanchor_64_64"><span class="label">[64]</span></a> Compare also the results of the same principle seen in writing. In -a letter a proper name or technical term when first introduced is probably -written in full and very distinctly, while afterwards it is either written -carelessly or indicated by a mere initial. Any shorthand-writer knows -how to utilize this principle systematically.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_65_65" id="Footnote_65_65"></a><a href="#FNanchor_65_65"><span class="label">[65]</span></a> “His pronunciation of some words is so distinct that an idea crossed -me once that he might be an actor” (Shaw, <cite>Cashel Byron’s Profession</cite>, 66).</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_66_66" id="Footnote_66_66"></a><a href="#FNanchor_66_66"><span class="label">[66]</span></a> Dickens, <cite>D. Cop.</cite> 2. 149 neverbe<i>rr</i>er, 150 I’mafraid you’reno<i>r</i>well (ib. -also <i>r</i> for <i>n</i>: Amigoa<i>r</i>awaysoo, Goo<i>r</i>i = Good night). | <cite>Our Mut. Fr.</cite> 602 -le<i>rr</i>ers. | Thackeray, <cite>Newc.</cite> 163 <i>Whas</i> that? | Anstey, <cite>Vice V.</cite> 328 <i>sh</i>upper, -I <i>sh</i>pose, wha<i>rr</i>iplease, say tha<i>rr</i>again. | Meredith, <cite>R. Feverel</cite> 272 No<i>r</i> a -bi<i>r</i> of it. | Walpole, <cite>Duch. of Wrex.</cite> 323-4 non<i>sh</i>en<i>sh</i>, Wa<i>sh</i> the matter? | -Galsworthy, <cite>In Chanc.</cite> 17 cur<i>sh</i>, un<i>sh</i>tood’m. Cf. also Fijn van Draat, -ESt 34. 363 ff.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_67_67" id="Footnote_67_67"></a><a href="#FNanchor_67_67"><span class="label">[67]</span></a> The inconveniences arising from having many homophones in a language -are eloquently set forth by Robert Bridges, <cite>On English Homophones</cite> (S.P.E., -Oxford, 1919)—but I would not subscribe to all the Laureate’s views, least -of all to his practical suggestions and to his unjustifiable attacks on some -very meritorious English phoneticians. He seems also to exaggerate the -dangers, e.g. of the two words <i>know</i> and <i>no</i> having the same sound, when -he says (p. 22) that unless a vowel like that in <i>law</i> be restored to the negative -<i>no</i>, “I should judge that the verb <i>to know</i> is doomed. The third person -singular of its present tense is <i>nose</i>, and its past tense is <i>new</i>, and the whole -inconvenience is too radical and perpetual to be received all over the world.” -But surely the rôle of these words in connected speech is so different, and -is nearly always made so clear by the context, that it is very difficult to -imagine real sentences in which there would be any serious change of mistaking -<i>know</i> for <i>no</i>, or <i>knows</i> for <i>nose</i>, or <i>knew</i> for <i>new</i>. I repeat: it is not -homophony as such—the phenomenon shown in the long lists lexicographers -can draw up of words of the same sound—that is decisive, but the chances -of mistakes in connected speech. It has been disputed whether the loss -of Gr. <i>humeîs</i>, ‘ye,’ was due to its identity in sound with <i>hemeîs</i>, ‘we’; -Hatzidakis says that the new formation <i>eseîs</i> is earlier than the falling -together of <i>e</i> and <i>u</i> [y] in the sound [i]. But according to Dieterich and -C. D. Buck (<cite>Classical Philology</cite>, 9. 90, 1914) the confusion of <i>u</i> and <i>i</i> or <i>e</i> -dates back to the second century. Anyhow, all confusion is now obviated, -for both the first and the second persons pl. have new forms which are -unambiguous: <i>emeîs</i> and <i>eseîs</i> or <i>seîs</i>.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_68_68" id="Footnote_68_68"></a><a href="#FNanchor_68_68"><span class="label">[68]</span></a> The NED has not arrived at this explanation; it says: “<i>Peer</i> is not -a phonetic development of <i>pire</i>, and cannot, so far as is at present known, -be formally identified with that word”; “the verbs <i>keek</i>, <i>peek</i>, and <i>peep</i> -are app. closely allied to each other. <i>Kike</i> and <i>pike</i>, as earlier forms of -<i>keek</i> and <i>peek</i>, occur in Chaucer; <i>pepe</i>, <i>peep</i> is of later appearance.... -The phonetic relations between the forms <i>pike</i>, <i>peek</i>, <i>peak</i>, are as yet unexplained.”</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_69_69" id="Footnote_69_69"></a><a href="#FNanchor_69_69"><span class="label">[69]</span></a> See, for instance, the following strong expressions: “<span lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Une langue -est sans cesse rongée et menacée de ruine par l’action des lois phonétiques, -qui, livrées à elles-mêmes, opéreraient avec une régularité fatale et désagrégeraient -le système grammatical.... Heureusement l’analogie (c’est ainsi -qu’on désigne la tendance inconsciente à conserver ou recréer ce que les -lois phonétiques menacent ou détruisent) a peu à peu effacé ces différences ... -il s’agit d’une perpétuelle dégradation due aux changements phonétiques -aveugles, et qui est toujours ou prévenue ou réparée par une réorganisation -parallèle du système</span>” (Bally, LV 44 f.).</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_70_70" id="Footnote_70_70"></a><a href="#FNanchor_70_70"><span class="label">[70]</span></a> Some speakers will say [su·] in <i>Susan</i>, <i>supreme</i>, <i>superstition</i>, but will -take care to pronounce [sju·] in <i>suit</i>, <i>sue</i>. Others are more consistent one -way or the other.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_71_71" id="Footnote_71_71"></a><a href="#FNanchor_71_71"><span class="label">[71]</span></a> I.e. “With confused and indistinct articulation; also, with a husky -or hoarse voice”—NED.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_72_72" id="Footnote_72_72"></a><a href="#FNanchor_72_72"><span class="label">[72]</span></a> Even in speaking a foreign language one may unconsciously apply -phonetic correspondences; a countryman of mine thus told me that he -once, in his anger at being charged an exorbitant price for something, exclaimed: -“<span lang="de" xml:lang="de">Das sind doch <i>unblaue</i> preise!</span>”—coining in the hurry the word -<i>unblaue</i> for the Danish <i lang="da" xml:lang="da">ublu</i> (shameless), because the negative prefix <i>un-</i> corresponds -to Dan. <i lang="da" xml:lang="da">u-</i>, and <i>au</i> very often stands in German where Dan. -has <i>u</i> (<i lang="de" xml:lang="de">haus</i> = <i lang="da" xml:lang="da">hus</i>, etc.). On hearing his own words, however, he immediately -saw his mistake and burst out laughing.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_73_73" id="Footnote_73_73"></a><a href="#FNanchor_73_73"><span class="label">[73]</span></a> With regard to Lat. <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">signum</i> it should be noted that it is by others -explained as coming from Lat. <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">secare</i> and as meaning a notch.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_74_74" id="Footnote_74_74"></a><a href="#FNanchor_74_74"><span class="label">[74]</span></a> It is, of course, impossible to say how great a proportion of the -etymologies given in dictionaries should strictly be classed under each of -the following heads: (1) certain, (2) probable, (3) possible, (4) improbable, -(5) impossible—but I am afraid the first two classes would be the least -numerous. Meillet (Gr 59) has some excellent remarks to the same effect; -according to him, “<span lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">pour une étymologie sûre, les dictionnaires en offrent -plus de dix qui sont douteuses et dont, en appliquant une méthode rigoureuse, -on ne saurait faire la preuve</span>.”</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_75_75" id="Footnote_75_75"></a><a href="#FNanchor_75_75"><span class="label">[75]</span></a> Westphalian also has <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">hoppen</i> ‘<span lang="de" xml:lang="de">zurückweichen</span>,’ ESt. 54. 88.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_76_76" id="Footnote_76_76"></a><a href="#FNanchor_76_76"><span class="label">[76]</span></a> Lewis Carrol’s ‘portmanteau words’ are, of course, famous.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_77_77" id="Footnote_77_77"></a><a href="#FNanchor_77_77"><span class="label">[77]</span></a> Speculation has been rife, but without any generally accepted results, -as to the relation between <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">plumbum</i> and words for the same metal in cognate -languages: Gr. <i>molibos</i>, <i>molubdos</i> and similar forms, Ir. <i lang="ga" xml:lang="ga">luaide</i>, E. <i>lead</i> (G. -<i lang="de" xml:lang="de">lot</i>, ‘plummet, half an ounce’), Scand. <i>bly</i>, OSlav. <i>olovo</i>, OPruss. <i>alwis</i>; see -Curtius, Prellwitz, Boisacq, Hirt Idg. 686, Schrader <cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Sprachvergl. u. Urgesch.</cite>, -3d. ed., ii. 1. 95; Herm. Möller, <cite lang="da" xml:lang="da">Sml. Glossar</cite> 87, says that <i>molibos</i> and -<i lang="la" xml:lang="la">plumbum</i> are extensions of the root <i>m-l</i> ‘<span lang="la" xml:lang="la">mollis esse</span>’ and explains the difference -between the initial sounds by referring to <i>multum</i>: comp. <i>plus</i>—certainly -most ingenious, but not convincing. Some of these words may originally -have been echo-words for the plumping plummet.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_78_78" id="Footnote_78_78"></a><a href="#FNanchor_78_78"><span class="label">[78]</span></a> I have discussed this more in detail and added other <i>m</i>-words of a -somewhat related character in <cite lang="da" xml:lang="da">Studier tillegnade E. Tegnér</cite>, 1918, p. 49 ff.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_79_79" id="Footnote_79_79"></a><a href="#FNanchor_79_79"><span class="label">[79]</span></a> Quoted here from John Wilkins, <cite>An Essay towards a Real Character -and a Philosophical Language</cite>, 1668, p. 448: Wilkins there subjects Bacon’s -saying to a crushing criticism, laying bare a great many radical deficiencies -in Latin to bring out the logical advantages of his own artificial ‘philosophical’ -language.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_80_80" id="Footnote_80_80"></a><a href="#FNanchor_80_80"><span class="label">[80]</span></a> Cf. also what Paul says (P 144) about one point in German grammar -(strong and weak forms of adjectives): “But the difficulty of the correct -maintenance of the distinction is shown in numerous offences made by -writers against the rules of grammar”—of course, not only by writers, but -by ordinary speakers as well.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_81_81" id="Footnote_81_81"></a><a href="#FNanchor_81_81"><span class="label">[81]</span></a> It has often been pointed out how Great Britain has ‘blundered’ -into creating her world-wide Empire, and Gretton, in <cite>The King’s Government</cite> -(1914), applies the same view to the development of governmental -institutions.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_82_82" id="Footnote_82_82"></a><a href="#FNanchor_82_82"><span class="label">[82]</span></a> In the realm of significations he sees the ‘humanization’ of language -exclusively in the development of abstract terms. An important point -of disagreement between Baudouin and myself is in regard to morphology, -where he sees only ‘oscillations’ in historical times, in which he is unable -to discover a continuous movement in any definite direction, while I maintain -that languages here manifest a definite progressive tendency.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_83_83" id="Footnote_83_83"></a><a href="#FNanchor_83_83"><span class="label">[83]</span></a> On the other hand, it is not, perhaps, fair to count the number of -<i>syllables</i>, as these may vary very considerably, and some languages favour -syllables with heavy consonant groups unknown in other tongues. The -most rational measure of length would be to count the numbers of distinct -(not sounds, but) articulations of separate speech organs—but that task -is at any rate beyond <em>my</em> powers.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_84_84" id="Footnote_84_84"></a><a href="#FNanchor_84_84"><span class="label">[84]</span></a> Thus also the corresponding Lat. <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">jecur</i> by <i>ficatum</i>, Fr. <i lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">foie</i>.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_85_85" id="Footnote_85_85"></a><a href="#FNanchor_85_85"><span class="label">[85]</span></a> This ungainly repetition is frequent in the Latin of Roman law, e.g. -<cite>Digest.</cite> IV. 5. 2, <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><i>Qui quæve</i> ... capite <i>diminuti diminutæ</i> esse dicentur, -in <i>eos easve</i> ... iudicium dabo.</span> | XLIII. 30, <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><i>Qui quæve</i> in potestate Lucii -Titii est, si <i>is eave</i> apud te est, dolove malo tuo factum est quominus apud -te esset, ita <i>eum eamve</i> exhibeas.</span> | XI. 3, <span lang="la" xml:lang="la">Qui <i>servum servam alienum alienam</i> -recepisse persuasisseve quid ei dicitur dolo malo, quo <i>eum eam</i> deteriorem -faceret, in eum, quanti ea res erit, in duplum iudicium dabo.</span> I owe these -and some other Latin examples to my late teacher, Dr. O. Siesbye. From -French, Nyrop (<cite lang="da" xml:lang="da">Kongruens</cite>, p. 12) gives some corresponding examples: -<span lang="fr" xml:lang="fr"><i>tous ceux et toutes celles</i> qui, ayant été orphelins, avaient eu une enfance -malheureuse</span> (Philippe), and from Old French: <span lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Lors donna congié à <i>ceus -et à celes</i> que il avoit rescous</span> (Villehardouin).</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_86_86" id="Footnote_86_86"></a><a href="#FNanchor_86_86"><span class="label">[86]</span></a> If instead of <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">omnium veterum</i> I had chosen, for instance, <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">multorum -antiquorum</i>, the meaning of masculine gender would have been rendered -four times: for languages, especially the older ones, are not distinguished -by consistency.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_87_87" id="Footnote_87_87"></a><a href="#FNanchor_87_87"><span class="label">[87]</span></a> The change of the initial sound of the reminder belonging to the -adjective is explained through composition with a ‘relative particle’ <i>a</i>; -<i>au</i> becoming <i>o</i>, and <i>ai</i>, <i>e</i>. The numbers within parentheses refer to the -numbers of Bleek’s classes. Similar sentences from Tonga are found in -Torrend’s <cite>Compar. Gr.</cite> p. 6 f.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_88_88" id="Footnote_88_88"></a><a href="#FNanchor_88_88"><span class="label">[88]</span></a> This protecting consonant was dropped in pronunciation at a later -period.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_89_89" id="Footnote_89_89"></a><a href="#FNanchor_89_89"><span class="label">[89]</span></a> Why so? Did sheep and cows also begin with vowels only, adding -<i>b</i> and <i>m</i> afterwards to make up their <i>bah</i> and <i>moo</i>?</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_90_90" id="Footnote_90_90"></a><a href="#FNanchor_90_90"><span class="label">[90]</span></a> The examples taken from Gabelentz’s <cite>Grammar</cite> and an article in -Techmer’s <cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Internat. Zeitschrift</cite> I.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_91_91" id="Footnote_91_91"></a><a href="#FNanchor_91_91"><span class="label">[91]</span></a> I must also mention A. Conrady, <cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Eine indochinesische Causativ-denominativ-bildung</cite> -(Leipzig, 1896), in which Lepsius’s theory is carried a great -step further and it is demonstrated with very great learning that many of -the tone relations (a well as modifications of initial sounds) of Chinese -and kindred languages find their explanation in the previous existence of -prefixes which are now extinct, but which can still be pointed out in Tibetan. -Though I ought, therefore, to have spoken of prefixes instead of ‘flexional -endings’ above, p. 371, the essence of the contention that prehistoric Chinese -must have had a polysyllabic and non-isolating structure is thus borne out -by the researches of competent specialists in this field.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_92_92" id="Footnote_92_92"></a><a href="#FNanchor_92_92"><span class="label">[92]</span></a> Madvig Kl 170, Max Müller L 1. 271, Whitney OLS 1. 283, G 124, Paul -P 1st ed. 181, repeated in the following editions, see 4th, 1909, 350 and 347, -349; Brugmann VG 1889, 2. 1 (but in 2nd ed. this has been struck out in -favour of hopeless skepticism), Schuchardt, <cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Anlass d. Volapüks</cite> 11, Gabelentz -Spr 189, Tegnér SM 53, Sweet, <cite>New Engl. Gr.</cite> § 559, Storm, <cite>Engl. Phil.</cite> 673, -Rozwadowski, <cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Wortbildung u. Wortbed.</cite>, Uhlenbeck, <cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Karakt. d. bask. Gramm.</cite> -24, Sütterlin WGS 1902, 122, Porzezinski, Spr 1910, 229.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_93_93" id="Footnote_93_93"></a><a href="#FNanchor_93_93"><span class="label">[93]</span></a> Two explanations of this formative element were given by the old -school: according to Schleicher C § 290, it was the root <i>ja</i> of the relative -pronoun; according to Curtius and others it was the root <i>i</i> ‘to go,’ Greek -<i>fer-o-i-mi</i> being analyzed as ‘I go to bear,’ whence, by an easy (?) transition, -‘I should like to bear,’ etc.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_94_94" id="Footnote_94_94"></a><a href="#FNanchor_94_94"><span class="label">[94]</span></a> Cf. Sommer, Lat. 528, and on Armenian and Tokharian <i>r</i> forms MSL -18. 10 ff. and Feist KI 455. But it must not be overlooked that H. Pedersen -(KZ 40. 166 ff.) has revived and strengthened the old theory that <i>r</i> in Italic -and Keltic is an original <i>se</i>.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_95_95" id="Footnote_95_95"></a><a href="#FNanchor_95_95"><span class="label">[95]</span></a> If <i>s</i> was a definite article, why should it be used only with some stems -and not with others? Why should neuters never require a definite article?</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_96_96" id="Footnote_96_96"></a><a href="#FNanchor_96_96"><span class="label">[96]</span></a> While it is difficult to see the relation between a demonstrative pronoun -or a deictic particle and genitival function, it would be easy enough to understand -the latter if we started from a possessive pronoun (<span lang="la" xml:lang="la">ejus, suus</span>), and, -curiously enough, we find this very sound <i>s</i> used as a sign for the genitive -in two independent languages, starting from that notion. In Indo-Portuguese -we have <i lang="pt" xml:lang="pt">gobernadors casa</i> ‘governor’s house,’ from <i lang="pt" xml:lang="pt">gobernador su casa</i> (above, -Ch. XI § 12, p. <a href="#Page_213">213</a>), and in the South-African ‘Taal’ the usual expression -for the genitive is by means of <i lang="af" xml:lang="af">syn</i>, which is generally shortened into <i lang="af" xml:lang="af">se</i> (<i>s</i>) -and glued enclitically to the substantive, even to feminines and plurals: -<i lang="af" xml:lang="af">Marie-se boek</i> ‘Maria’s book,’ <i lang="af" xml:lang="af">di gowweneur se hond</i> ‘the governor’s dog’ -(H. Meyer, <cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Die Sprache der Buren</cite>, 1901, p. 40, where also the confusion -with the adjective ending <i>-s</i>, in Dutch spelt <i>-sch</i>, is mentioned. For the -construction compare G. <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">dem vater sein hut</i> and others from various languages; -cf. the appendix on E. <i>Bill Stumps his mark</i> in ChE 182 f.).</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_97_97" id="Footnote_97_97"></a><a href="#FNanchor_97_97"><span class="label">[97]</span></a> Cf. Lloyd George’s speech at Dundee (<cite>The Times</cite>, July 6, 1917): “The -Government will not permit the burdens of the country to be increased -by what is called ‘profiteering.’ Although I have been criticized for -using that word, I believe on the whole it is a rather good one. It is <i>profit-eer-ing</i> -as distinguished from <i>profit-ing</i>. Profiting is fair recompense for -services rendered, either in production or distribution; profiteering is an -extravagant recompense given for services rendered. I believe that unfair -in peace. In war it is an outrage.”</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_98_98" id="Footnote_98_98"></a><a href="#FNanchor_98_98"><span class="label">[98]</span></a> Bleek is here thinking of classes like those of the Bantu languages, -which have nothing to do with sex.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_99_99" id="Footnote_99_99"></a><a href="#FNanchor_99_99"><span class="label">[99]</span></a> For bibliography and criticism see Wheeler in <cite>Journ. of Germ. -Philol.</cite> -2. 528 ff., and especially Josselin de Jong in <cite lang="nl" xml:lang="nl">Tijdschr. v. Ned. Taal- en Letterk.</cite> -29. 21 ff., and the same writer’s thesis <cite lang="nl" xml:lang="nl">De Waardeeringsonderscheiding van -levend en levenloos in het Indogermaansch vergel. m. hetzelfde verschijnsel in -Algonkin-talen</cite> (Leiden, 1913). Cf. also Hirt GDS 45 ff.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_100_100" id="Footnote_100_100"></a><a href="#FNanchor_100_100"><span class="label">[100]</span></a> “Inner and essential connexion between idea and word ... there -is none, in any language upon earth,” says Whitney L 32.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_101_101" id="Footnote_101_101"></a><a href="#FNanchor_101_101"><span class="label">[101]</span></a> I have learnt very little from the discussion which followed Wundt’s -remarks on the subject (S 1. 312-347); see Delbrück Grfr 78 ff., Sütterlin -WSG 29 ff., Hilmer Sch 10 ff.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_102_102" id="Footnote_102_102"></a><a href="#FNanchor_102_102"><span class="label">[102]</span></a> Schuchardt, KS 5. 12, <cite lang="de" xml:lang="de">Zs. f. rom. Phil.</cite> 33. 458, Churchill B 53, Sandfeld-Jensen, -<cite>Nationalfølelsen</cite> 14, Lentzner, <cite>Col.</cite> 87, Simonyi US 157, <cite>The -Outlook</cite>, January 1910, <cite>New Quarterly Mag.</cite>, July 1879.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_103_103" id="Footnote_103_103"></a><a href="#FNanchor_103_103"><span class="label">[103]</span></a> <i>F</i>, for instance, in <i>fop</i>, <i>foozy</i>, <i>fogy</i>, <i>fogram</i> (old), all of them more or -less variants of <i>fool</i>.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_104_104" id="Footnote_104_104"></a><a href="#FNanchor_104_104"><span class="label">[104]</span></a> The preceding paragraphs on the symbolic value of <i>i</i> are an abstract -of a paper which will be printed in <cite>Philologica</cite>, vol. i.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_105_105" id="Footnote_105_105"></a><a href="#FNanchor_105_105"><span class="label">[105]</span></a> Benfey Gesch 791, Misteli 539, Wundt S 1. 331 (but his examples from -out-of-the-way languages must be used with caution, and curiously enough -he thinks that the phenomenon is limited to primitive languages and is not -found in Semitic or Aryan languages), GRM 1. 638, Simonyi US 255, Meinhof, -Ham 20.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_106_106" id="Footnote_106_106"></a><a href="#FNanchor_106_106"><span class="label">[106]</span></a> I must confess that I find nothing symbolical in <i>glas</i> and very little -in <i>fouet</i> (though the verb <i>fouetter</i> has something of the force of E. <i>whip</i>). -On the whole, much of what people ‘hear’ in a word appears to me fanciful -and apt to discredit reasonable attempts at gaining an insight into the -essence of sound symbolism; thus E. Lerch’s ridiculous remark on G. <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">loch</i> -in GRM 7. 101: “<span lang="de" xml:lang="de"><i>loch</i> malt die bewegung, die der anblick eines solchen -im beschauer auslöst, durch eine entsprechende bewegung der sprachwerkzeuge, -beginnend mit der liquida zur bezeichnung der rundung und endend -mit dem gutturalen <i>ch</i> tief hinten in der gurgel</span>.”</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_107_107" id="Footnote_107_107"></a><a href="#FNanchor_107_107"><span class="label">[107]</span></a> It may not be superfluous expressly to point out that there is no contradiction -between what is said here on the disappearance of tones and the -remarks made above (Ch. XIX § <a href="#XIX_4">4</a>) on Chinese tones. There the change -wrought in the meaning of a word by a mere change of tone was explained on -the principle that the difference of meaning was at an earlier stage expressed -by affixes, the tone that is now concentrated on one syllable belonging -formerly to two syllables or perhaps more. But this evidently presupposes -that each syllable had already some tone of its own—and that is what in -this chapter is taken to be the primitive state. Word-tones were originally -frequent, but meaningless; afterwards they were dropped in some languages, -while in others they were utilized for sense-distinguishing purposes.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_108_108" id="Footnote_108_108"></a><a href="#FNanchor_108_108"><span class="label">[108]</span></a> On the lack of abstract and general terms in savage languages, see -also Ginneken LP 108 and the works there quoted.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_109_109" id="Footnote_109_109"></a><a href="#FNanchor_109_109"><span class="label">[109]</span></a> Of course, if instead of <i>look upon</i> and <i>outcome</i> we had taken the corresponding -terms of Latin root, <i>consider</i> and <i>result</i>, the metaphors would -have been still more dead to the natural linguistic instinct.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_110_110" id="Footnote_110_110"></a><a href="#FNanchor_110_110"><span class="label">[110]</span></a> From the experience I had with my previous book, <cite>Progress</cite>, from -which this chapter has, with some alterations and amplifications, passed -into this volume, I feel impelled here to warn those critics who do me the -honour to mention my theory of the origin of language, not to look upon it -as if it were contained simply in my remarks on primitive love-songs, etc., -and as if it were based on <i>a priori</i> considerations, like the older speculative -theories. What I may perhaps claim as my original contribution to the -solution of this question is the <em>inductive</em> method based on the three sources -of information indicated on p. <a href="#Page_416">416</a>, and especially on the ‘backward’ consideration -of the history of language. Some critics think they have -demolished my view by simply representing it as a romantic dream of a -primitive golden age in which men had no occupation but courting and -singing. I have never believed in a far-off golden age, but rather incline -to believe in a progressive movement from a very raw and barbarous age -to something better, though it must be said that our own age, with its national -wars, world wars and class wars, makes one sometimes ashamed to think -how little progress our so-called civilization has made. But primitive ages -were probably still worse, and the only thing I have felt bold enough to -maintain is that in those days there were some moments consecrated to -youthful hilarity, and that this gave rise, among other merriment, to vocal -play of such a character as closely to resemble what we may infer from the -known facts of linguistic history to have been a stage of language earlier -than any of those accessible to us. There is no ‘romanticism’ (in a bad -sense) in such a theory, and it can only be refuted by showing that the view -of language and its development on which it is based is erroneous from -beginning to end.</p></div> - - - -</div> - - -<hr class="full" /> - - -<div class="transnote"> - -<h2 class="nobreak"><a name="Transcribers_Note" id="Transcribers_Note">Transcriber's Note</a></h2> - -<p>On p. 373, "ź" is used to represent a letter "z" with a vertical line diacritic.</p> - - -<p>The following apparent errors have been corrected:</p> - -<ul><li>p. 9 "etc" changed to "etc."</li> - -<li>p. 49 "will" changed to "<i>will</i>"</li> - -<li>p. 63 "‘Sanskritic," changed to "‘Sanskritic,’"</li> - -<li>p. 98 "Bréal Delbrück" changed to "Bréal, Delbrück"</li> - -<li>p. 98 "Meillet Meringer" changed to "Meillet, Meringer"</li> - -<li>p. 109 "VIII, § 9" changed to "VIII, § 8"</li> - -<li>p. 173 (note) "‘Subtraktionsdannelser,”" changed to "“Subtraktionsdannelser,”"</li> - -<li>p. 184 "pronunication" changed to "pronunciation"</li> - -<li>p. 216 (note) "25 1" changed to "251"</li> - -<li>p. 216 "Mittleilungen" changed to "Mitteilungen"</li> - -<li>p. 228 "chapter" changed to "chapter."</li> - -<li>p. 234 (note) "ii" changed to "ii."</li> - -<li>p. 237 "Grammar" changed to "Grammar."</li> - -<li>p. 239 "accounted for" changed to "accounted for."</li> - -<li>p. 247 "a women" changed to "a woman"</li> - -<li>p. 254 "peoples" changed to "peoples."</li> - -<li>p. 266 "a might" changed to "as might"</li> - -<li>p. 274 "economzie" changed to "economize"</li> - -<li>p. 280 "word·" changed to "word;"</li> - -<li>p. 284 "(æ·]" changed to "[æ·]"</li> - -<li>p. 290 "[see" changed to "(see"</li> - -<li>p. 294 (note) "laughing" changed to "laughing."</li> - -<li>p. 301 "<i>A Memorandum on Modern Telugu</i>" changed to "<i>A Memorandum on Modern Telugu</i>,"</li> - -<li>p. 309 "<i>Glossar</i>" changed to "<i>Glossar.</i>"</li> - -<li>p. 339 "Nolde, <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">Einleit. in die Altertumswiss</i>" changed to "Norden, <i lang="de" xml:lang="de">Einleit. in die Altertumswiss.</i>"</li> - -<li>p. 353 "<i lang="zu" xml:lang="zu">isizwe</i>" changed to "<span lang="zu" xml:lang="zu"><i>isi</i>zwe</span>"</li> - -<li>p. 355 "<i lang="zu" xml:lang="zu">amazwe</i>" changed to "<span lang="zu" xml:lang="zu"><i>ama</i>zwe</span>"</li> - -<li>p. 358 "uo longer" changed to "no longer"</li> - -<li>p. 358 "qnestion" changed to "question"</li> - -<li>p. 358 "<i>oexn</i>" changed to "<i>oxen</i>"</li> - -<li>p. 370 "is has" changed to "it has"</li> - -<li>p. 375 "with may" changed to "which may"</li> - -<li>p. 393 "respectively" changed to "respectively."</li> - -<li>p. 394 "ablative" changed to "ablative."</li> - -<li>p. 400 "hill;" changed to "hill;’"</li> - -<li>p. 417 "forgotten than" changed to "forgotten that"</li> - -<li>p. 441 "Ch. VIII § 9" changed to "Ch. VIII § 8"</li> - -<li>p. 443 "<i lang="de" xml:lang="de">wost bist</i>" changed to "<i lang="de" xml:lang="de">wo-st bist</i>"</li> - -<li>p. 447 "Puscariu" changed to "Pușcariu"</li> - -<li>p. 447 "stump-words," changed to "stump-words"</li></ul> - - - -<p>Inconsistent or old spelling, punctuation and hyphenation have otherwise been retained as printed.</p> - - -<p>The following possible errors have been left as printed:</p> - -<ul><li>p. 130 Il a pleuvy</li> - -<li>p. 215 austellung</li> - -<li>p. 292 abusee</li> - -<li>p. 359 dison</li> - -<li>p. 378 finire</li></ul> - -</div> - - - - - - - - -<pre> - - - - - -End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of Language, by Otto Jespersen - -*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK LANGUAGE *** - -***** This file should be named 53038-h.htm or 53038-h.zip ***** -This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: - http://www.gutenberg.org/5/3/0/3/53038/ - -Produced by Henry Flower and the Online Distributed -Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This file was -produced from images generously made available by The -Internet Archive/American Libraries.) - -Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions will -be renamed. - -Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright -law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, -so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United -States without permission and without paying copyright -royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part -of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm -concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, -and may not be used if you charge for the eBooks, unless you receive -specific permission. If you do not charge anything for copies of this -eBook, complying with the rules is very easy. You may use this eBook -for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, -performances and research. They may be modified and printed and given -away--you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks -not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the -trademark license, especially commercial redistribution. - -START: FULL LICENSE - -THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE -PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK - -To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free -distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work -(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full -Project Gutenberg-tm License available with this file or online at -www.gutenberg.org/license. - -Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works - -1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to -and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property -(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all -the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or -destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your -possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a -Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound -by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the -person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph -1.E.8. - -1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be -used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who -agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few -things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See -paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this -agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below. - -1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the -Foundation" or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection -of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual -works in the collection are in the public domain in the United -States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the -United States and you are located in the United States, we do not -claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, -displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as -all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope -that you will support the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting -free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm -works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the -Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with the work. You can easily -comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the -same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg-tm License when -you share it without charge with others. - -1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern -what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are -in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, -check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this -agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, -distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any -other Project Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no -representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any -country outside the United States. - -1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: - -1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other -immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear -prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work -on which the phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the -phrase "Project Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, -performed, viewed, copied or distributed: - - This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and - most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no - restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it - under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this - eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the - United States, you'll have to check the laws of the country where you - are located before using this ebook. - -1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is -derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not -contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the -copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in -the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are -redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply -either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or -obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted -with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution -must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any -additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms -will be linked to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works -posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the -beginning of this work. - -1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm -License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this -work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. - -1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this -electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without -prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with -active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project -Gutenberg-tm License. - -1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, -compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including -any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access -to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format -other than "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official -version posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site -(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense -to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means -of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original "Plain -Vanilla ASCII" or other form. Any alternate format must include the -full Project Gutenberg-tm License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. - -1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, -performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works -unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing -access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -provided that - -* You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from - the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method - you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed - to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he has - agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid - within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are - legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty - payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in - Section 4, "Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg - Literary Archive Foundation." - -* You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies - you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he - does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm - License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all - copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue - all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg-tm - works. - -* You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of - any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the - electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of - receipt of the work. - -* You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free - distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. - -1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work or group of works on different terms than -are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing -from both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and The -Project Gutenberg Trademark LLC, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. - -1.F. - -1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable -effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread -works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project -Gutenberg-tm collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may -contain "Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate -or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other -intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or -other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or -cannot be read by your equipment. - -1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right -of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project -Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all -liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal -fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT -LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE -PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE -TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE -LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR -INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH -DAMAGE. - -1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a -defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can -receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a -written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you -received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium -with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you -with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in -lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person -or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second -opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If -the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing -without further opportunities to fix the problem. - -1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth -in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO -OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT -LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. - -1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied -warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of -damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement -violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the -agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or -limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or -unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the -remaining provisions. - -1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the -trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone -providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in -accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the -production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, -including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of -the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this -or any Project Gutenberg-tm work, (b) alteration, modification, or -additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any -Defect you cause. - -Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm - -Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of -electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of -computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It -exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations -from people in all walks of life. - -Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the -assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's -goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will -remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure -and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future -generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see -Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at -www.gutenberg.org - - - -Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation - -The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit -501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the -state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal -Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification -number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by -U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. - -The Foundation's principal office is in Fairbanks, Alaska, with the -mailing address: PO Box 750175, Fairbanks, AK 99775, but its -volunteers and employees are scattered throughout numerous -locations. Its business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt -Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up to -date contact information can be found at the Foundation's web site and -official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact - -For additional contact information: - - Dr. Gregory B. Newby - Chief Executive and Director - gbnewby@pglaf.org - -Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation - -Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide -spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of -increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be -freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest -array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations -($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt -status with the IRS. - -The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating -charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United -States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a -considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up -with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations -where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND -DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular -state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate - -While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we -have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition -against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who -approach us with offers to donate. - -International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make -any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from -outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. - -Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation -methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other -ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To -donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate - -Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. - -Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project -Gutenberg-tm concept of a library of electronic works that could be -freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and -distributed Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of -volunteer support. - -Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed -editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in -the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not -necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper -edition. - -Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search -facility: www.gutenberg.org - -This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, -including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to -subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. - - - -</pre> - -</body> -</html> diff --git a/old/53038-h/images/colophon.jpg b/old/53038-h/images/colophon.jpg Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 7c51e5f..0000000 --- a/old/53038-h/images/colophon.jpg +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/53038-h/images/cover.jpg b/old/53038-h/images/cover.jpg Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 1d16cba..0000000 --- a/old/53038-h/images/cover.jpg +++ /dev/null |
